Nothing (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2009, 14:08 (5462 days ago) @ George Jelliss

Stenger's claim that the universe "looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God" is, in my view, silly because we have no other universe, designed or non-designed, to compare it to.-GEORGE: It would seem then on this criterion that we can't say anything definite about our universe unless we have experience of other universes. This is definitely silly.-It certainly would be. Fortunately, science is able to learn more and more about the structure, mechanics and materials of our universe thanks to enormous advances in technology. But there is a world of difference between scientific observation and subjective speculation. Stenger's statement is pure speculation. -Stenger says: "The model in which the universe [...] had a spontaneous, uncaused natural origin [...] agrees with all the data." I asked if we had all the data, and whether terms like "spontaneous" and "uncaused" represented objective scientific conclusions. George replies: "On this basis one could never arrive at any conclusions on anything! There could always be other data. If dhw was ever on a jury he could never convict anyone of anything."-Well, I would only convict if I thought the evidence left little or no room for doubt. In the case of accident v. design, you say that Stenger's arguments are based on the laws of physics, which do not require the influence of gods. The theory of design (not be confused with Creationism) does not, so far as I know, claim that the designer flouted the laws of physics. The argument, if I have understood it correctly, is that the universe is so complex and so "fine tuned" in its suitability for life that ID-ers do not believe it to be the result of chance. (The same complexity argument applies to the origin of life itself.) In other words, ID looks at the same data viewed by Stenger and comes up with the opposite conclusion. While I respect Stenger's and your faith in chance, and I respect the ID-ers' faith in some kind of designer, I'm unable to share either faith. And so in this case, my verdict is: "not proven". If I were in the dock, I would hate to be convicted because the jury were swayed by personal faith and speculation rather than by the evidence. However, since the origin of the universe and the origin of life are, let us say, pretty rare cases, I don't think you should extrapolate general conclusions about my ability to pass judgement on other matters!-As far as the Big Bang is concerned, Mark and David have summed up the argument very nicely. Welcome back, Mark. We've missed you.