Atheist scientists asking for help with their Elephant

[BobRyan]

What many do not know about our atheist scientist friends - is that they have been plagued by a string of "just so story telling" and were trying to find a way out when low and behold - an elephant showed up.

Before we get to the elephant - remember that "just so stories" are equivalent to the "thunderstorm wrote my term paper" argument. Holding to such an thunderstorm solution - no matter how illogical that seems - since "my term paper exists", is one of the ways they have tried to solve their small scale problems at the 1% level.

Video shows Atheist Scientists confess to non-science need for non-God solutions

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374#docid=-7044753105944203252

A QUICK guide through the 45 min video:

Intro - play first 2:30 min:seconds. Then skip to next

Start

at 11:30 – The Tuning argument begins

13:50 – scientist hate the idea of being created – of the tuned universe.

(Dark energy vs the Higgs field energy)

15:00 the “just so” story telling confronted by 15:50 ultimate tuning factor

17:00 fine tuning – 1% “just luck – 1.. 1 part in 1 / 10^120 – the most extreme example of fine tuning!!

18:20 – the alternative to blind luck at 1/10^20 was “impossible to contemplate” for atheists!!

19:30 – A designer – “a notion that the atheists did not want to entertain”! END

The explanation/solution for the problem so troubling to actual open minded atheist scientists - was to "imagine" a multiverse so they could avoid the massive 10^120 sized ELEPHANT in their living room!

Hint - my Christian friends - share this one with your church.

in Christ,

Bob

[joeb]

I just watched the video. Very interesting how scientists will completely reject God because He isn't "provable", but yet will accept their own unprovable guess because it leads them where they want to go.

[phkrause]

Very interesting how scientists will completely reject God because He isn't "provable"

Joeb I believe personally that that is just an excuse.

[phkrause]

I just watched the video. Very interesting how scientists will completely reject God because He isn't "provable", but yet will accept their own unprovable guess because it leads them where they want to go.

[Igakusei]

Very interesting how you guys will reject the scientific method because you don't like the conclusions reached while using it, despite clearly knowing absolutely jack-all about how and why scientists actually come to said conclusions.

[ClubV12]

Igakusei you make a good point about how a belief in biblical truth does not require an advanced degree or superior knowledge to know where science fails. The things of God can be understood, applied and believe in with confidence by even the simplest of men. The bible says God created all things, done, simple, with that knowledge there is no reason to be fooled by even the greatest of scientific minds and their foolish worldly views.

[Stan]

IMHO this would have been a lot more interesting with out the word Atheist plastered in places.

[Bravus]

Two points:

1. The cosmological constant is relevant *only* in an evolving universe, not a specially created universe. Whatever this is an argument for, it is not an argument in favour of special creation, particularly recent creation.

2. Bob has failed to understand the point that I am making with his 'thunderstorm wrote my essay' 'argument'. The point is, if the universe were other than as it is, *we would not be here*. The fact that we *are* here is not, in itself, evidence for any particular set of claims about why the universe is as it is.

A society of mutual appreciation of mutual ignorance might be very satisfying to live in, but the key point is that it is disconnected from the reality of this universe.

If you want to eschew all scientific arguments and believe by faith, by all means do so.

If you start making scientific arguments - as this thread does - then you need to actually *understand* the arguments being made. Making an argument from ignorance drawing on science is not a tenable position.

[Igakusei]

Igakusei you make a good point about how a belief in biblical truth does not require an advanced degree or superior knowledge to know where science fails. The things of God can be understood, applied and believe in with confidence by even the simplest of men. The bible says God created all things, done, simple, with that knowledge there is no reason to be fooled by even the greatest of scientific minds and their foolish worldly views.

You make an excellent point about how knowledge is not required in order to believe in the creationist worldview. Interestingly, it seems to actually be a lack of knowledge that is actually required.

Atheists tend to know quite a bit about geology, biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, psychology, sociology, history, and yes, especially religion.

Creationists, in my experience, tend to know very little about most of the above. In many cases, they know even less about the histories of their own religions than atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFrkjEgUDZA&feature=youtu.be&t=9s

[Igakusei]

Also, Genesis 1-3 is pretty much a textbook "just-so story."

[ClubV12]

"A society of mutual appreciation of mutual ignorance..."

Must be a referrence to science falsely so called.

"Atheists tend to know quite a bit about geology, biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, psychology, sociology, history, and yes, especially religion."

Is that supposed to impress me? I've been around academia long enough to know stupid people come from all walks of life and plenty letters after your name is no gaurentee you aren't one!

All that learning, all that study, and yet, they are running on empty and don't even know it. Much studying and never able to come to the truth is what the bible has to say on that subject.

But the sad part of all this is that there doesn't HAVE to be disagreement between science and biblical truth. In so many ways they compliment and support each other when properly understood.

[phkrause]

"A society of mutual appreciation of mutual ignorance..."

Must be a referrence to science falsely so called.

"Atheists tend to know quite a bit about geology, biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, psychology, sociology, history, and yes, especially religion."

Is that supposed to impress me? I've been around academia long enough to know stupid people come from all walks of life and plenty letters after your name is no gaurentee you aren't one!

All that learning, all that study, and yet, they are running on empty and don't even know it. Much studying and never able to come to the truth is what the bible has to say on that subject.

But the sad part of all this is that there doesn't HAVE to be disagreement between science and biblical truth. In so many ways they compliment and support each other when properly understood.

[Bravus]

But again, the point is being missed.

No-one is claiming knowledge makes people 'better', or even smarter. What it does do, kinda obviously, is make them more knowledgable.

This thread makes a scientific claim. Making a scientific claim you *don't understand* is not showing faith in God or anything else good.

It's just showing ignorance.

[BobRyan]

I just watched the video. Very interesting how scientists will completely reject God because He isn't "provable", but yet will accept their own unprovable guess because it leads them where they want to go.

Indeed there was a large fuss made at the 13 minute to 19 minute point on that vid - where they all whined about just how much they did not "want" to be put in a odds-out position with no option but "The Designer" to make sense of their dilemma.

Pretty hard to ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

IMHO this would have been a lot more interesting with out the word Atheist plastered in places.

While some of the big bang cosmology may indeed apply to theistic evolutionists as well - (as you seem to be pointing out) the salient point at the highlighted 13:00 through 19:30 point of the video - is all the explicit statements made about "anything" being better than the alternative of accepting "a designer".

If that POV is not distinctly atheist -- then perhaps I have missed something among our non-atheist friends. Why would non-Atheists be so anxious about the prospect of a "designer" as the solution to the specific problem they were addressing on the video?

Is it your position that some Christians would share the "anything but a designer" anxiety of those on the video?

Are you saying that Atheists do not view the term "atheist" the same way that Christians view the term "Christian"? It seems that Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and others are actually as happy with the term - as Christians are with the term "Christian". Am I missing something?

Did you watch that 6 minute section?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

"A society of mutual appreciation of mutual ignorance..."

Must be a referrence to science falsely so called.

"Atheists tend to know quite a bit about geology, biology, chemistry, physics, cosmology, psychology, sociology, history, and yes, especially religion."

Is that supposed to impress me?

1. It is impressively "wrong" if you include "Christianity" in the term "religion". (At least if national published surveys are to be believed).

2. I have to wonder how many of our atheist friends were really "fully informed" about the 1 / 10^120 sized elephant in the living room that this video so carefully exposes.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Also, Genesis 1-3 is pretty much a textbook "just-so story."

Far be it from me to argue that atheists such as yourself would not view the Bible in much the same way as Christians view the storytelling of atheists when it comes to cosmology and life.

To a certain extent both sides view the other one has lacking in both evidence and logic.

Which is why it is so useful to have this video -- of just the "one side" exposing their heartfelt fears about having to confront the possibility of a "designer" when faced with their 1 / 10^120 elephant "tuning" problem.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

You've also missed the tone of that video, Bob: all that 'reluctance' is fake - these were people who believed in a Designer all along, and are playing a propaganda game about being 'forced to it by the evidence'.

Your beloved 'objective, unbiased observer' can see that a mile off just by watching the video.

[BobRyan]

It would have helped you to have watched the entire video rather than shooting from the hip on that one --

The "whole point" of the video is that the cosmologist being highlighted is the one that came up with the "Multiverse" solution that gives them a non-Designer option for the problem.

To sell it - he has to first explain why the problem was soooo significant in the first place. And they spend a lot of time explaining that aspect of it - before they get to the "Multiverse is your answer" conclusion.

Make no mistake about it - I would be perfectly happy pushing a pro-designer video making the same case. Some of the people at the Discovery Institute might be helpful in that regard. In fact I have already done that here with "Expelled" showing on-camera statement by Dawkins and others as well as the life-of-the-cell video clips.

As it turns out - I know a "multiverse promotional" when I see one. Especially when it comes from the guy whose name is on the label.

Recently (April 2011) atheist scientist Martin Reese took some heat for accepting grant/gift funds from an organization that is not atheist. The very fact that he assumed to be confined to "just atheist" endorsements (by those criticizing him) gives us a hint as to just how well entrenched he is in that particular POV.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

I *did* watch the video. And I stand by the above point.

[Bravus]

This paper includes reference to a much larger number again, if large numbers excite you... http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fined.cfm

[BobRyan]

Your link does little if anything to solve Rees' problem.

Your link states

Quote:

There have been many types of response to this kind of argument. Some look for alternative explanations which reduce the apparently prodigious improbability of life. They argue that the physical constants have more leeway than supposed, or that there is an underlying physical explanation for such constants having those precise values, or that there are an infinite number of universes each with different values for the physical constants and of course we are in the one that supports life.

As compared to your "pay no attention to the improbability of the proposal" solution.

In the video Rees is dealing with a 10^120 sized elephant -- in your link however the author "imagines the problem" down to something like 10^37 and tries to pawn that off on "the design proponent".

Quote:

In the design proponent's mind the life supporting range is a tiny portion of the dial that corresponds roughly speaking to 2000 ± 2000 * 10-37.

More attention to the facts on the part of that author would have been "helpful".

In the end - the less than stellar argument on your link boils down to

Quote:

But how big is the non-life supporting part of the dial's range? What are the upper and lower limits? We have no other universes to compare and as far as I know there is no theory to fall back on

As if Rees knew nothing about the relationship of the cosmological constant to Higgs field and dark energy having the result "observed" in the universe today.

The author appears to be "imagining" that a wide range of values are all valid having only "his hope" as proof of that fact.

By contrast - I think Rees was trying to take the problem seriously and is a bit more accountable for his published opinions.

In your link the story is promoted that Christians are the only ones that might notice the "huge improbability" problem for evolutionists - and would be the only ones to care about it.

But in Dr. Martin Rees' video - it is world renown atheist cosmologists that "notice" and that "care" about such things.

Comments?

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

This paper includes reference to a much larger number again, if large numbers excite you... http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fined.cfm

Pointing out even more extreme impossibilities for the non-designed non-designer camp - is not helping their case as much as you may have at first supposed.

in Christ,

Bob

[fccool]

Bob,

First of all, atheism is not like religion. You won't have the "head of atheists" who speaks for all of them in terms of their belief. I don't think that any of them are delusional enough to accept that multiverse hypothesis is not a belief. Hypotheses have to undergo rigorous scrutiny, and experimentation prior to be considered acceptable theories. You can't point to one or a group of people and say that entire body of atheists "need" to come up with ideas of "no God" view.

Many atheists came out of communities of believers, and saw the lies that they've been put through because there is a need for that community to show that God exist. Most of them don't reject the possibility, but they reject it as KNOWLEDGE. I really don't want you to miss the point here. They reject it as KNOWLEDGE, while Christians young and old, embrace it as KNOWLEDGE, even though it is a belief.

I can't tell how shocked I was when my pastor in order to give support for Biblical narrative, began telling the story to the congregation about NASA scientists found out that there was a day missing in the universe. It's preposterous. So, when I hear another story from the pulpit about amazing miracles that God performed today, how can I trust that guy, when he randomly pulls these stories from heresay resources for pastors, and much of them are made up? How can any respectable scientist who would be sitting in the audience that day, and heard that story about missing day or that laminin is an incontrovertible proof that God exists and the he is a Christian God, would not go on assuming that religion is perpetuated by lies, some of which are blatantly made-up?

You are not having problem with that elephant in the living room, and you don't have problems with such unsubstantiated stories coming from 1000s of Pastors worldwide.

But, you do have problem with several members of scientific community who propose the multiverse hypothesis as explanation, and you erroneously ascribe such explanations not only to atheism, but to science at large.

Atheism, meaning "No God", does not merely mean "No God, because I have a need for not having one". These people have very good reasons to be what they claim to be.

There was a debate between Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron and proponents of Atheism, and they promised that they would present viable evidence for existence of God. What did they bring? A Coca Cola can (thank goodness they did not embarrass themselves once more with the banana example), and pictures of "Corocoduck". These guys are embarrassing to hear. I could not have been more embarrassed for Christian community, than hear these two guys pour logical fallacy upon logical fallacy, misrepresentation upon misrepresentation, and then have audacity to tell people that "they need to be saved" as a result of their "proof of God".

The sad thing, is that people like Ray comfort are "Amened" in the Christian communities just as much as my pastor was "amened" what he was telling the lie about NASA finding out a missing day.

When we are living in the world of causal relationships, and one rejects the God hypothesis based on lack of any falsifiable evidence of such hypothesis, why wouldn't one be looking for other explanations? Such is the nature of science.

That's the entire point... When you ask a scientist "how else can universe come into being?", what answers do you expect? Or are you merely looking for the one that you are currently believe in? There are plenty of scientists who would agree with you on that (there's having conversation with you on this thread). Why do you misrepresent the ideas and views of those you don't?

[BobRyan]

Bob,

First of all, atheism is not like religion. You won't have the "head of atheists" who speaks for all of them in terms of their belief.