Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Dualing Fallacies: God of Gaps vs .Fortress of Facts

Photobucket







im Skeptocal, "God of The Gaps" The Skeptic Zon, (Juky 2, 2016) blog,vURL http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/ 

Once again skeptical is shooting his mouth off about things he doesn't quite get right, here we have a classic example of what I call the atheist fortress of facts, I have a two parter on it in the classics, bit it';s basically just the idea that science is a big pile of fact, atheism has a bigger pile than Christianity so it's more scientific.To see why the idea is antithetical to science see my classic posts Answering the atheist fortress of facts, part 1 and part 2/

The God of the Gaps" is a term that atheists often use to describe the nature of theistic belief in a world where science provides increasingly more natural explanations for things that were once explained by God.  
No it isn't. It's argument that turns upon a gap in knowledge.He makes it sound like any theistic knowledge is GOG, but in reality it is an argument that turns upon a gap in knowledge. But a barrier is not a gap. The classic example of a gap would be this argument: (1) we do not know what makes living beings live. (2) Science has no complete satisfying explanation for this, therefore,  it must be God that creates life. [1]

Here's an example of an argument not based upon a gap.This is an argument I invented, it's on my old site Doxa. It's one of my 42 argument for God on they God argument list.old site Doxa:

(1) there is not time or laws of physiocs at the singularity
(2) there is no change or becoming in a timeless void.
(3) the singularity emerges from a timeless void
(4) no physics exists to explain and by all that we know nothing should have come to be  (from 1,2).
(5) therefore, we are warranted in thinking the assumption that the universe requires a mind as creator to change the rules
There is a gap here but that is not what the argument turns upon ,it;s saying more than just we don't know how the universe produced big bang, it's saying there's a positive reason why it should not havehappened. That is not a gap. The atheists are assuming that belief is only an attempt to explain science. So they can't phantom the idea that there could be reasons for belief that have nothing to do with science, There are. Mystical experience is probably the major reason to believe and it has nothing to  do with science.

"Perhaps the most striking example," Skeptical goes on,"of natural explanations replacing theistic ones is the origin of animal species.  This was once though to be the work of a divine intelligent creator, but now science has eliminated the need for any "goddidit" explanations." 

That argument just assumes a belief motivated by fighting evolution, There is no reason why evolution and belief in God are competing. ,ai have no idea why atheists are so paranoid of appealing to God for an explanation, when that doesn't require denying any scientific facts at all. There are several gaps with barriers in them, I'll be getting to that in a bit. Now here is where he really appllies the fortress of facts:

As scientific knowledge expands into new areas, and more completely fills our understanding of the observable world, the holes or gaps in that knowledge continue to shrink, and along with that, the realm of supernatural explanations is rapidly vanishing too.  Theists cling to those ever-shrinking areas where scientific knowledge is still lacking to hang on to their persistent "goddidit" explanations.  Their God has been reduced to hiding in the dark shadows where empirical knowledge has yet to penetrate.  This God can't reveal itself to human observation, because whenever science examines empirical evidence, the superior explanation for what is observed always turns out to be naturalistic.
Here we see the fortress of facts concept at work. He doesn't get that science is about hypothesis testing he thinks it's about piles up facts. He thinks one with the most facts wins, Facts of religion are shrinking so religion is going down the tubes. Seldom does one see the misconception so l conically put. He's the poster boy for the fallacious fortress of facts. Lookimg at it from the other sides what they call god of the gaps is also the fortress of facts

"This is a matter of considerable embarrassment to theists."  No it's not. It ought to be embarrassing to him because it shows that he really doesn't understand science. Carl Popper said science is not about proving things it;s about disproving things this guy is talking about an actual pile of facts growing in the atheist column.[2]

 They are well aware that theistic explanations are losing ground to science, and they don't have any good response.  They turn to explanations that emphasize the hidden aspect of God's works.  Instead of claiming that God designed animal species and placed them on the earth as is, they now tout "theistic evolution", which claims that God is still running the show, but in a way that is completely unobservable.  Instead of claiming that God cast fire and brimstone at a sinful city, they say God caused a volcanic eruption by fully natural means under his control.  The problem with explanations like this is the simple fact that nature alone is sufficient to explain these things, and there is no evidence and no reason to add God into the mix. 
They are not losing ground because gthey don't compete fror anything.This assumes that theologians give a damn about science, they don't. Some of the great theologians have been accepted in scientific circles are major thinkers.Alfred North Whithead who wrote Principia with Bertrand Russell, and Charles Hartshorne, Both of them developed process theology, But they are not under the inclusion that its science, no one is and one cares. Another theologian who was a scientists for real was Tielhard De Chardin, he was a Paleontologist and was on the expedition to find Peking man.


Still, they are unwilling to relinquish their deeply-held belief that God is behind it all.  To the theist, everything in the observable world is evidence of God.  That's nice, but if we're talking about what theory provides the best explanation for the things we observe in our world, then invariably, the naturalistic explanation is superior.  Nature is simpler than nature plus God.  And nature without guidance answers more questions satisfactorily than nature with God's intelligent guidance.  Theists need to face up to the fact that the evidence does not point to any kind of supernatural influence in our world.

Of course that;s because it;s true and many of us have seen things that demonstrate the truth, /the problem is the atheist can't handle truth so they redefine the issue so they don't have to deal with it., One such means of doing that is the redefining of Supernatural so that it doesn't match the true idea, Thus they keep demanding something Christianity never calmed to give in the fist place.So I'll get into that in a minute too. There's still more of this business about the fortress of facts to deal with first,


"Theists have asked if there could be any observable evidence that would convince the naturalist that there must be some kind of supernatural influence at work.  The question has been answered many times.  For example, Jerry Coyne said this:"
There are so many phenomena that would raise the specter of God or other supernatural forces: faith healers could restore lost vision, the cancers of only good people could go into remission, the dead could return to life, we could find meaningful DNA sequences that could have been placed in our genome only by an intelligent agent, angels could appear in the sky. The fact that no such things have ever been scientifically documented gives us added confidence that we are right to stick with natural explanations for nature. And it explains why so many scientists, who have learned to disregard God as an explanation, have also discarded him as a possibility. -Coyne 
We have given evidence on all of that, there are faith healing that are documented scientifically. But that's not supernatural that;s part of the counterfeit notion they using as a red herring, There is an epistemological problem here that must be dealt with. If we assert that anything that happens has to be naturalistic then nothing could ever count against naturalism. Just that it happens can't be the evidence. They might try to ground it in rules s no rules. That;s just an extension of the happening issue if we say that happening means it's obeying preset natural laws. There's also a contradiction in the sense that modern science  no longer sees "a natural law" as real law. It seems to be a law-like regularity but they don;t see it as prescription but description, That is also inconsistent and opens up a can of worms since there;s no violating the law even though it';s not a law. What does it describe? it describes law-like regulatory.

The difference between theism and science is not one of observable rules vs  no rules. The only difference is that theism recognizes a distal cause while naturalism wants to pretend  there are only proximate causes. Nothing theistic says things happen without rules, There is no way to prove one way or the other that things happen because of some higher cause. There are only warrants for belief.  No proof either way. It's a total misconception to set up the distinction between naturalism = rules and supernatural = no rules. Supernatural is not anti-natural. It's not opposed to laws of nature. He keeps conflating the idea of the gap with the problems of no rules, First one and then the other is the motivation for supernatural. All the while it just never dawns on him to ask the believer what supernatural is rather than insisting they can ipose what we believe upon us.

That leaves us with the only remaining possibility that might make sense.  There must be some kind of supernatural influence going on.  And why should we think this is the case?  Because we have evidence.  We have an observable phenomenon that, as best we can tell after eliminating natural explanations, is supernatural.  Will scientists try to find a natural explanation for it?  You bet they will.  But if all such efforts fail, then the only recourse is to explain it as supernatural. The fact is that everything in our experience so far has been amenable to a naturalistic explanation.  
Of course ruling out the supernatural from ever having happened depends entirely upon how you define supernatural, He wants to make rules and what happened the distinguishing features and that;s begging the question. He is saying that we know its natural because it happens and we know that nothing  else happens. But if happening is really the issue then nothing else could happen but that it would be called natural, He's just begging the question. He wants to rule out a prirori anything that standse agakisnt his ideology.

"Everything does behave according to the regularities of nature, and there has never been a single verifiable exception to this.  That's precisely why naturalists believe that naturalism is true."  So it's obvious what I say is true, anything that happens has to be naturalistic because happening is what makes it naturalistic. Thus nothing could ever happen that's not naturalistic. What winds up happening is when people do describe the world working in ways that imply God and that disprove naturalism the naturalist just does the question begging move and the power of a thousand previous begged questions gives them the precipitant to overlook the process again.



 But theists insist that there are supernatural things, yet they can't show us any evidence of it.  We just need to see evidence for what we believe.  If a frustrated theist like Mikey tells us that our demand to see evidence is just god-of-the-gaps reasoning, he should be reminded that his God of the gaps is not based on any empirical evidence.  It is a God that hides in the shadows, refusing to be seen.  His accusation is nothing more than a child's retort: "I know you are but what am I?"  The gap is between his ears.

The naturalists have sewed the criteria, fraught with epistemological difficulties, they sweep the epistemology under the rug and use the difficulties to set up false criteria.That works to their advantage jn two ways They can (1) say "just show us the evidence" of course we can;t because they wean to evidence fro the wrong thing,m like the counterfeit supernatural. (2) It also means they reject the evidence we do have because they don;t accept the right thing. Example of that is the religious experience evidence which is some  of the best evidence there is.They don't even have a comept of why it's evidence because they are in totally the wrong ball park.

There are many aspects of spiritual reality we could document but I;ll do three, These are aspects of relaity thayt not materiao or n]can loigcialy be understood as SN in tyhe true snese,

(1) the real version of the Christian SN

I have written an article about the false notion of SN and of course setting out the true notion, [3] SN is not a realm beyond the psychical but the power of God to lift us up to a higher level of human awareness and  spirituality. This plays out into basically mystical experience.[4] With the understanding of the proper idea of SN we can understand religious experience as the trace of God. Thus the transformation effects of become evidence of the true SN.[5]


(2) Lourdes's Miracles.

It's ironic that Coyne demanded faith healing because that is one of the best evidences, The Catholic church has drew up an excellent documentation machine for documenting miracles, They use major medical researchers from around EU and the use skeptics kin the committee they have strict rules, An article in an academic journal by a team of medical historians says that the healings at Lourdes check out as inexplicable by any natural means [6] That is not proof of healing but it's a good warrant for belief

Irreducible Nature of consciousness to Brain Function. 

Consciousnesses in and of itself is not SN bujt it is not physical it;s the realityu ofa realkm of existence that does not conform to the expected standards of atheist ideology because it'snot physical or material,l



But while it may be true that certain psychological processes are contingent on some neurophysiological activity, we cannot necessarily say that psychological processes reduce to ‘nothing but’ that activity. Why not? – Because much of the time we are not dealing with cause and effect, as many neuroscientists seem to think, but rather two different and non-equivalent kinds of description. One describes mechanism, the other contains meaning. Understanding the physical mechanisms of a clock, for example, tells us nothing about the culturally constructed meaning of time. In a similar vein, understanding the physiological mechanisms underlying the human blink, tells us nothing about the meaning inherent in a human wink (Gergen, 2010). Human meaning often transcends its underlying mechanisms. But how does it do this?[7]

The problem binding is a barrier that will not allow reduce ability Here we have a good example of something anesthetists have called god of the gaps but increaioty is not, There is an actual reason why mind is not reduce able to brain:

The essential concept common to all of them is  that  oscillatory electrical activity in widely distributed neural populations can be rapidly and reversibly synchronized in the gamma band of frequencies (roughly 30-70 Hz) thereby providing a possible mechanism for binding.” (von der Malsburg 1995). A great deal of sophisticated experimental and theoretical work over the past 20 years demonstrates that mechanisms do exist in the nervous system and they work in relation to the normal perceptual synthesis. Indeed Searl’s doctrine of biological naturalism has now crystallized neurophysiologically in the form of a family of global workspace theories, all of which make the central claim that conscious experience occurs specifically and only with large scale patters of gamma band oscillatory activity linking widely separated areas of the brain. [20]




Here are some lin ks to othier things I; e written arguing against Skpetical's statement about everything is explained by science












Sources


[1] im Skeptocal, "God of The Gaps" The Skeptic Zon, (Juky 2, 2016) blog,vURL http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/


[2] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, New York:Routledge Classics, original English publication 1959 by Hutchison and co. by Routldege 1992. On line copy URL:http://www.cosmopolitanuniversity.ac/library/LogicofScientificDiscoveryPopper1959.pdf digital copy by Cosmo oedu visited 2/6/2012, p4


[3] Joseph Hinman, "True Christian concept of SN prt 1," The Religious A Priori blog 
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-true-christian-concept-of-super.html  accessed 6/4/16


[4] Emil Durkheim quoted in Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” Ethos, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf (accessed 1/25/2016)

[5] Joseph Hinman, "Empirical Evidence of The Supernatural
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/empiorical-evidence-of-supernatural.html

part 2 of "Empirical Evidence of SN"

[6] Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.


[7] Brad Peters, Modern Psychologist, “the Mind Does not Reduce to the Brain.” On line resource, blog, 2/4/12
URL: http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-mind-does-not-reduce-to-the-brain/   visited 5/3/12
Brad Peters, M.Sc. Psychologist (Cand. Reg.) • Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


[8] C.Von der Malsburg, “Binding In Models of Perception and Brain Function.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5, 520-526. also sited Crick 94; Dehaene and Naccache,  2001; Edelmon and Tononi, 2000; Engle, Fries and Singer 2001; W.J. Freeman 2000, and others.



18 comments:

im-skeptical said...

Since there is so much bullshit in this post, I wrote a full post in response. If I get time in the next day or two, I'll respond to some of the points that I wasn't able to address here.

JBsptfn said...

Oh, is there, Skeppy? His explanations seem pretty good to me. You just don't understand what Joe is talking about.

Oh, and BTW, say hi to Papa Plagiarizer for me. I just posted a link from Feser's blog on your site about his plagiarizing after a smart alec comment he made about Christians and belief.

im-skeptical said...

Here's an example of an argument not based upon a gap. ...

(1) there is not time or laws of physiocs at the singularity
(2) there is no change or becoming in a timeless void.
(3) the singularity emerges from a timeless void
(4) no physics exists to explain and by all that we know nothing should have come to be (from 1,2).
(5) therefore, we are warranted in thinking the assumption that the universe requires a mind as creator to change the rules


- (1) and (2) are both false. There are certain laws of physics (notably relativity) that break down under conditions that are referred to as "the singularity" (extremely compact universe). However quantum physics predicts the phenomenon known as "inflation", and the generation of matter. Quantum physics is valid before, during, and after the big bang. Furthermore, this very phenomenon proves that there is change and becoming in a timeless void. So statement (4) is not only false, it is demonstrably so. There is no warrant to assume that a mind must be involved. There is no reason to think such a thing. It's just physics. Mathematical equations playing out with no conscious intervention or intent.

The fact is that this argument is based on sheer ignorance of current scientific thinking. It's a good thing you know so much about science. I'd hate to see what kind of pablum you could come up with if you didn't know what you were talking about.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
Here's an example of an argument not based upon a gap. ...

(1) there is not time or laws of physiocs at the singularity
(2) there is no change or becoming in a timeless void.
(3) the singularity emerges from a timeless void
(4) no physics exists to explain and by all that we know nothing should have come to be (from 1,2).
(5) therefore, we are warranted in thinking the assumption that the universe requires a mind as creator to change the rules

- (1) and (2) are both false. There are certain laws of physics (notably relativity) that break down under conditions that are referred to as "the singularity" (extremely compact universe).

that's merely a semantic difference. I said n o law at singularity you say they break down; same thing. I did not say they never exist anywhere,



However quantum physics predicts the phenomenon known as "inflation", and the generation of matter. Quantum physics is valid before, during, and after the big bang.

Inflation does not occur in the singularity, there is no :before" that;'s a misnomer since there's no time there's no before time. Time is a function of space/time so there is beyond event horizon but not before.




Furthermore, this very phenomenon proves that there is change and becoming in a timeless void.

How does it prove that? you apparently don't understand what singularity is, There is no real timeless void the singularity is not a timeless void it's mathematical point.
because there is no change. But it's in contradiction because nothing should have come to be. Space/time is change and with no time no change.




So statement (4) is not only false, it is demonstrably so.

You have not demonstrated a physics to explain the coming to be of time from noontime,

There is no warrant to assume that a mind must be involved. There is no reason to think such a thing. It's just physics. Mathematical equations playing out with no conscious intervention or intent.

what happened is contrary to the facts we know that's why they are still up in the air as to how it came to be. The assumptions they make currently are based upon begging the question Look at Universe from nothing by Krauss. He asserts that it must be so because thye universe is here That;s question begging but moreover,he asserts "nothing, knowing full well there is no nothing, The nothing of that statement is vacuum flux so there's sometime to account for, but there are no physics to account for the event.



The fact is that this argument is based on sheer ignorance of current scientific thinking. It's a good thing you know so much about science. I'd hate to see what kind of pablum you could come up with if you didn't know what you were talking about.

I take my argument from David Albert Phd. in theoretical physics and professor phil of science at NYU.Albet's review of Krauss in NYT shut down his book.slales plummeted

Ryan M said...

(1) there is not time or laws of physiocs at the singularity
(2) there is no change or becoming in a timeless void.
(3) the singularity emerges from a timeless void
(4) no physics exists to explain and by all that we know nothing should have come to be (from 1,2).
(5) therefore, we are warranted in thinking the assumption that the universe requires a mind as creator to change the rules

Joe that argument is not even close to being logically valid. 4 is not a consequence of 1 and 2 since "Should have" is not part of 1 and 2. You need to add the right material conditionals to deduce 4 from 1 and 2. 5 is a complete non sequitur. Nothing about 1 through 4 specify anything about epistemic warrant, or a mind, or a creator. You can't just say "Therefore P" and think that you must have made a valid argument. You need to add all the relevant premises and make sure the premises are of the right form. e.g. If you derive a conclusion from a conditional, then make sure you have a premise with the right form "If P then Q". You miss these things, and while you might avoid committing the GOGs fallacy, you also avoid making a logically valid argument.

Sometimes it is perfectly fine to skip premises or bits of reasoning, such as in the following argument:

1. A is true or B is true.
2. A implies C and B implies C.
3. Therefore C is true.

That argument is obviously valid so you don't need to list how 3 is deduced from 1 and 2. But if your argument leads people to scratching their head in confusion then you definitely need to fix it. Just because you know what you have in mind for an argument doesn't imply that everyone else knows, so you need to make explicit the full reasoning of any arguments which people might not see are obviously valid.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
(1) there is not time or laws of physiocs at the singularity
(2) there is no change or becoming in a timeless void.
(3) the singularity emerges from a timeless void
(4) no physics exists to explain and by all that we know nothing should have come to be (from 1,2).
(5) therefore, we are warranted in thinking the assumption that the universe requires a mind as creator to change the rules

Joe that argument is not even close to being logically valid. 4 is not a consequence of 1 and 2 since "Should have" is not part of 1 and 2. You need to add the right material conditionals to deduce 4 from 1 and 2. 5 is a complete non sequitur. Nothing about 1 through 4 specify anything about epistemic warrant, or a mind, or a creator. You can't just say "Therefore P" and think that you must have made a valid argument. You need to add all the relevant premises and make sure the premises are of the right form. e.g. If you derive a conclusion from a conditional, then make sure you have a premise with the right form "If P then Q". You miss these things, and while you might avoid committing the GOGs fallacy, you also avoid making a logically valid argument.


It's not God of the Gaps. That was the point all of those knit pics are minor in that they require tweaking the argument itself does';t have to change conceptually.

Paul says the letter kills but the spirit gives life, philosophy version, the letter gives validity but the spirit equals a sound argument


Sometimes it is perfectly fine to skip premises or bits of reasoning, such as in the following argument:

1. A is true or B is true.
2. A implies C and B implies C.
3. Therefore C is true.

That argument is obviously valid so you don't need to list how 3 is deduced from 1 and 2. But if your argument leads people to scratching their head in confusion then you definitely need to fix it. Just because you know what you have in mind for an argument doesn't imply that everyone else knows, so you need to make explicit the full reasoning of any arguments which people might not see are obviously valid.
July 7, 2016 at 4:39 AM
Post a Comment

then I giess I would be better not numbering it,

My argumet is that nothinug can change where there is no time so time could never come to be because ikt rquires achange, ?

Joe Hinman said...


\
I wrote that from memory. here;s the original version on Doxa



1) Time has a begining.

2) There is no causality or sequential order beyond time.

3) Therefore, no change beyond time is possible.

4) The putative state of affiars beyond time is one of timlessness. 5) Therefore, time should never have come to be.

6) We know that time did come to be, therefore, it must have been created by something capable of writing and circumventing the rules.

7) Only God would be capable of writting and circumventing the rules of time and eternity, therefore, God must exit.


compare

(1) there is not time or laws of physiocs at the singularity
(2) there is no change or becoming in a timeless void.
(3) the singularity emerges from a timeless void
(4) no physics exists to explain and by all that we know nothing should have come to be (from 1,2).
(5) therefore, we are warranted in thinking the assumption that the universe requires a mind as creator to change the rules

im-skeptical said...

that's merely a semantic difference. I said n o law at singularity you say they break down; same thing. I did not say they never exist anywhere
- We are talking past each other. I am saying that there is no situation in which all the laws of physics break down. Cosmic inflation doesn't come from an object called "the singularity". It comes from the quantum vacuum.

Inflation does not occur in the singularity, there is no :before" that;'s a misnomer since there's no time there's no before time. Time is a function of space/time so there is beyond event horizon but not before.
- Inflation does not occur in the singularity, because the singularity isn't even part of the currently accepted theory. Inflation precedes the big bang (in which the cosmic background radiation was produced). There are different theories of time, but in any case, a state of nothingness is postulated before the emergence of the universe.

How does it prove that? you apparently don't understand what singularity is, There is no real timeless void the singularity is not a timeless void it's mathematical point. because there is no change. But it's in contradiction because nothing should have come to be. Space/time is change and with no time no change.
- Your philosophical/theistic objection to science doesn't concern me. I know which of them has the better track record.

I take my argument from David Albert Phd. in theoretical physics and professor phil of science at NYU.Albet's review of Krauss in NYT shut down his book.slales plummeted
- Albert is a philosopher. His review of Krauss was widely panned, too, but loved by theists. As I understand it, he objected to Krauss for being so bombastic about religious beliefs, not on scientific grounds. But since you get your understanding of all this from him, why don't you explain what Krauss got wrong about the science?

Joe Hinman said...

-skeptical said...
that's merely a semantic difference. I said n o law at singularity you say they break down; same thing. I did not say they never exist anywhere
- We are talking past each other. I am saying that there is no situation in which all the laws of physics break down. Cosmic inflation doesn't come from an object called "the singularity". It comes from the quantum vacuum.

Qm vacuum is not eternal it comes with expansion. It is not like the inflationary universe is expanding from eternal aspect. Inflation comes after the expansion begins so that is not a cause of the expansion.The expansion proceeds from a timeless state.



Joe:Inflation does not occur in the singularity, there is no :before" that;'s a misnomer since there's no time there's no before time. Time is a function of space/time so there is beyond event horizon but not before.

SKep:- Inflation does not occur in the singularity, because the singularity isn't even part of the currently accepted theory.

that ois total Bull shit, Singularity is still part of inflationary models, you are confusing inflation with Hawking's no boundry condition.

Spiotzer says singularities inevitable in inflationary models:
http://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43150/Spitzer%20Big%20Bang%20Paper.pdf


Inflation precedes the big bang (in which the cosmic background radiation was produced). There are different theories of time, but in any case, a state of nothingness is postulated before the emergence of the universe.

No everything I've read says otherwise,


Joe Hinman said...

Inflationary theory is the idea that the universe expanded to huge size from a single point very quickly, almost instantaneously, like a balloon being blown up with a single breath.


(a period of accelerating expansion in the very early Universe) is now accepted as the standard explanation of several cosmological problems. In order for inflation to have occurred, the Universe must have been formed contaiInflationning some matter in a highly excited state. Inflationary theory does not address the question of why this matter was in such an excited state. Answering this demands a theory of the pre-inflationary initial conditions. There are two serious candidates for such a theory. The first, proposed by Andrei Linde of Stanford University, is called chaotic inflation. According to chaotic inflation, the Universe starts off in a completely random state. In some regions matter will be more energetic than in others and inflation could ensue, producing the observable Universe.i
Inflation explains the large scale structure of the universe.ii But it does not explain hierarchical order. There's nothing in inflationary theory that proves inflation to be totally naturalistic in origin. Moreover, the statement above clearly demonstrates that inflation assumes the preexistence of matter, laws, and some kind of excitation. That would mean hierarchical order, organizing principles, and physical conditions already existed, so inflation can't explain them.
Physicist Paul Steinhardt, one of the originators of the theory, had doubts about it as early as his first paper on the subject (1982). He admits that the point of the theory was to eliminate fine tuning (a major God argument), but the theory only works if one fine tunes the constants that control the inflationary period. “The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.”iii Nor is inflationary theory backed by observation. Many great observations have been made to back up the original theory. But as Steinhardt points out the theory has evolved such that, “we no longer believe that inflation makes any of those predictions so that none of the magnificent observations made over the last 30 years can be viewed as supporting inflation.”iv What's more one prediction that has not worked out is gravitational waves, predicted before '83, that should have been detected by WMAP and Planck satellites and was not.v

1] CTC, “Origins of the Universe: Quantum Origins,” The Stephan Hawking Center for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge, online resource, URL: http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/quantum_cosmology_one.php accessed 10/5/15.

[2]Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith, Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution, NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 2004, pp. 84–5.

[3]John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15.
Horgan interviews Steinhardt.
[4]Ibid
[5]Ibid






Joe Hinman said...

Joe:How does it prove that? you apparently don't understand what singularity is, There is no real timeless void the singularity is not a timeless void it's mathematical point. because there is no change. But it's in contradiction because nothing should have come to be. Space/time is change and with no time no change.





- Your philosophical/theistic objection to science doesn't concern me. I know which of them has the better track record.

Joe:I'm quoting scientists genius! screw your head on.do you want to learn something or not? face the reality of the argument you can't answer, stop your childish them and us mentality to justify your mistakes


I take my argument from David Albert Phd. in theoretical physics and professor phil of science at NYU.Albet's review of Krauss in NYT shut down his book.slales plummeted


- Albert is a philosopher. His review of Krauss was widely panned, too, but loved by theists.

has you been conscious the day his article came out the world was laughing at Krauss. of course the atheist pundits had to say something so they laid and told their brain washed lackeys like you the other way around ut is a lie.go look up tyie artocles stupid.,

uou can;t face reality ,you have lost, your nonsense is a lie God is real



As I understand it, he objected to Krauss for being so bombastic about religious beliefs, not on scientific grounds. But since you get your understanding of all this from him, why don't you explain what Krauss got wrong about the science?
July 7, 2016 at 5:08 PM
Post a Comment

that is not what he said. you didn't even read it you just took your atheist masters words for it, good lite brain washed mention. thematic thing he said was physicists do mot nonthreatening when they say nothing, they mean vacuum flux. So he still has to explain vacuum flux.

I made a mistake above, I misspoke saying VF began with expansion, That;s all unknown basically.


Joe Hinman said...

"The Inflation Theory proposes a period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments. It was developed around 1980 to explain several puzzles with the standard Big Bang theory, in which the universe expands relatively gradually throughout its history.Apr 16, 2010"

"Inflation was both rapid, and strong. It increased the linear size of the universe by more than 60 "e-folds", or a factor of ~10^26 in only a small fraction of a second! Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory since it explains the above puzzles so well, while retaining the basic paradigm of a homogeneous expanding universe. Moreover, Inflation Theory links important ideas in modern physics, such as symmetry breaking and phase transitions, to cosmology."

from NASA PR

<a hfef="http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html<b>http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html</b></a>



see it's an extension of BB it cam't be w/0 singualirity or come before it

Joe Hinman said...

HERE

Joe Hinman said...

Spiotzer says singularities inevitable in inflationary models:

im-skeptical said...

Joe,

There may be some quibbling over the definition of a singularity, and some people still use the term, as I have done, but what they mean by it is not the same as the classic definition that has become obsolete in physics.

You can quote all the passages you like from cosmologists, but you don't understand any of it. Inflation theory has basically replaced the notion of a classic singularity. In other words, there never was a time when the matter of the universe was compressed into a single point. here is a diagram that depicts the currently accepted theory. Notice that it goes from quantum fluctuations to inflation. And this happens before anything that we would recognize as the big bang, where cosmic radiation is produced in someting that resembles an explosion. This article describes the theory in a fairly digestible way.

im-skeptical said...

By the way, Joe, If you want to hear some discussion of the concept of a singularity, listen to someone who's in a position to make a definitive statement here, at about 30:55.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
Joe,

There may be some quibbling over the definition of a singularity, and some people still use the term, as I have done, but what they mean by it is not the same as the classic definition that has become obsolete in physics.

nope not what ht evidence says, actually read the evidence stop assuming atheist web sites know anything,



You can quote all the passages you like from cosmologists, but you don't understand any of it. Inflation theory has basically replaced the notion of a classic singularity.

singularity is part of the inflationary model, you qualify it as :classical: that was before inflation so all you are really youngish the old fashioned dais oldfashoned so what> that is just drivel. meaningless drivel. you also do that childish "you don't understand it" because anyone who disagrees with you...stupid.


In other words, there never was a time when the matter of the universe was compressed into a single point. here is a diagram that depicts the currently accepted theory. Notice that it goes from quantum fluctuations to inflation. And this happens before anything that we would recognize as the big bang, where cosmic radiation is produced in something that resembles an explosion. This article describes the theory in a fairly digestible way.

of course not that;s not the point I already said matters not in a singularity DNA in a seed that's what is meant by: mathematical point," that does n;'t change my argument,


July 8, 2016 at 9:08 AM
im-skeptical said...
By the way, Joe, If you want to hear some discussion of the concept of a singularity, listen to someone who's in a position to make a definitive statement here, at about 30:55.
July 8, 2016 at 9:37 AM
Post a Comment


stop assuming Christians are stupid start listening to what isay I know more than you. I worked on Ph,D for 10 years you probably din't even go to college you are using an extended appeal to authority in assuming only atheists know things, you don't know, you do not know

im-skeptical said...

nope not what ht evidence says, actually read the evidence stop assuming atheist web sites know anything,
- I did read it, Joe. The singularity they talk about is not at all the same thing that you have in mind. It is a mathematical construct that represents a boundary in time. It is NOT the point structure that was postulated as the container of the compressed universe that exploded in the big bang. If you listened to Guth himself on the topic, you would have heard him say that nobody believes that anymore.

singularity is part of the inflationary model, you qualify it as :classical: that was before inflation so all you are really youngish the old fashioned dais oldfashoned so what> that is just drivel. meaningless drivel. you also do that childish "you don't understand it" because anyone who disagrees with you...stupid.
- I understand it WAY better than you, Joe.

of course not that;s not the point I already said matters not in a singularity DNA in a seed that's what is meant by: mathematical point," that does n;'t change my argument,
- The point we were talking about (as I recall) is whether anything happened before the big bang. The Spitzer article you cited is just more Christian apologetic crap that attempts to twist physics into an argument for God by noting that the current theory implies a singularity (a boundary in time). What it does not imply is that there was nothing before it. Cosmologists generally agree that the formation of our universe is nothing unique, and in fact it would be unreasonable to assume (as theists do) that the same thing hasn't happened over and over again.

stop assuming Christians are stupid start listening to what isay I know more than you. I worked on Ph,D for 10 years you probably din't even go to college you are using an extended appeal to authority in assuming only atheists know things, you don't know, you do not know
- Oh, brother.