mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 11, 2016 1:03:30 GMT
My contention has been that the observed universe's features are inconsistent with what we'd expect to see from a traditional Christian perspective. An all-powerful God could surely create a universe far more parsimoniously (i.e. without aspects that are unnecessary to his goal). Originally as I noted before the universe was believed by Christians to be the Sun, Moon, Earth and stars (the last being merely lights above us, not distant suns). This is far more in keeping with their view of the universe and God. Indeed, a very similar universe to what we have subsequently discovered is what metaphysical naturalists like the Greek Epicureans posited. It is not only the fact that the universe is mostly empty of life, but hostile. To say this is therefore fine-tuned for life seems odd. There are many black holes, probably far more than worlds sustaining life-perhaps it is fine-tuned for them.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 11, 2016 7:35:42 GMT
Do you have evidence that black holes are not a contributing factor to life?
I'm not sure that the hostility argument is all that different from the emptiness argument. But it's possible it is a relevant argument to be weighed against other evidence. However, I cannot see it bearing enough weight to overturn the importance of the very specific fine-tuning we see in the universe.
(And no, the universe we have discovered isn't very similar to any ancient philosophy.)
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 11, 2016 13:56:05 GMT
Do you have evidence that black holes are not a contributing factor to life? Black holes swallow all matter in their vicinities up. That's evidence against it. I'm not aware of any evidence they contribute to life. I'm not sure that the hostility argument is all that different from the emptiness argument. But it's possible it is a relevant argument to be weighed against other evidence. However, I cannot see it bearing enough weight to overturn the importance of the very specific fine-tuning we see in the universe. Well, the idea of fine-tuning says that the universe has been made for life, or is amenable to it anyway. If it's only marginally or minimally amenable to life, that undermines the idea significantly. (And no, the universe we have discovered isn't very similar to any ancient philosophy.) I disagree. From what I've read of the Epicurean view, it was surprisingly similar to modern cosmology (much more than the original Christian idea). The latter is the point-Epicureanism was only mentioned as a contrast.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 11, 2016 16:52:01 GMT
Black holes are a product of stellar evolution, because they form from stars with a mass of three Sun masses or more. Stellar death is an important mechanism in increasing the proportion of heavier elements in the universe. That is a precondition for complex chemistry and thus for life.
The exception are super-massive black holes, the origins of which are still shrouded in darkness. However, they may play a role in galaxy formation.
I'm not sure it does. If the claim is that the universe is optimally fine-tuned for life, sure, that is refuted by that argument. But the claim that a high level of fine-tuning is required for the universe to permit life and that this level is observed doesn't seem to be affected all that much by it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Epicureans simply follow Democritus's cosmology? Atoms move randomly, hit on each other and get stuck for some time but fall apart on death, and atoms' properties are indicated by their shape.
In my experience overly favorable comparison of any one classical cosmology over another is more influenced by personal preference and interpretation than objective correspondence. For instance, one could say that the idea of atoms randomly moving is a perfect anticipation of the behaviour of gases in classical physics. Except that these atoms aren't specified by the Epicureans to be in gaseous form at all. Also, a complicating factor is that early Christian opinion on cosmology was highly diverse (often borrowing from both scepticism and Platonism) and it wasn't at all clear to me how you'd delineate "traditional". Does it just cover classical antiquity or does it even stretch into early modern times?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 12, 2016 1:44:42 GMT
Black holes are a product of stellar evolution, because they form from stars with a mass of three Sun masses or more. Stellar death is an important mechanism in increasing the proportion of heavier elements in the universe. That is a precondition for complex chemistry and thus for life. The exception are super-massive black holes, the origins of which are still shrouded in darkness. However, they may play a role in galaxy formation. Well, that's interesting. It seems to me more like life was a side-effect though. The question would be just how "fine-tuned" it is for life, when there isn't that much of it. Given its rarity the level doesn't seem so high. Yes, though I was thinking more specifically about their support for a natural origin of life and the universe which are very similar to modern science. I'm thinking here of how the Jews and then many early Christians viewed the universe. Obviously the Epicureans didn't get everything right either (I wouldn't expect them to). I'm thinking here of classical antiquity, not the modern period. However this was more about the lack of special insight into the nature of the universe than anything.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 14, 2016 21:08:52 GMT
Maybe it was a side-effect. I believe fine-tuning is necessary for life to appear, but I'm cautious of language like "fine-tuned for" life. I think the universe compared to all possible options (for which we still have a great many degrees of liberty) can be said to be biophilic, but I don't think I'm in a place to say that life is the only end or function of our universe. So I am not as inclined to expect more optimisation for life for fine-tuning to be true. I think a theist should be prepared to allow other ends to the universe beside life or merely just humans.
Could you fill me in about their views about cosmogony? Mind you that we still don't have an account of origin for the universe (nor strictly speaking for life but abiogenesis is well supported) so there isn't really much to correspond to for the Epicurean view there.
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 15, 2016 0:07:03 GMT
Maybe it was a side-effect. I believe fine-tuning is necessary for life to appear, but I'm cautious of language like "fine-tuned for" life. I think the universe compared to all possible options (for which we still have a great many degrees of liberty) can be said to be biophilic, but I don't think I'm in a place to say that life is the only end or function of our universe. So I am not as inclined to expect more optimisation for life for fine-tuning to be true. I think a theist should be prepared to allow other ends to the universe beside life or merely just humans. Could you fill me in about their views about cosmogony? Mind you that we still don't have an account of origin for the universe (nor strictly speaking for life but abiogenesis is well supported) so there isn't really much to correspond to for the Epicurean view there. Well, no one doubts the conditions had to be right for life. It's just whether they were "fine-tuned" by an entity that is questioned. I'm not sure-could the term "fine-tuning" be applied even to purely naturalistic processes with no entity responsible for them? Perhaps, but it seems to be mostly used in the context of some entity. I think we largely agree on this. My point has mostly been to point out that the universe could be far more biophilic than it is, and thus it's hard to say whether it was "fine-tuned" for that. It appears to have been much like modern science: that all things which exist came from atoms and void, which alone have existed forever, with the rest coming to exist by purely naturalistic processes from this. They believed there were many other worlds, some of which had life. All living things themselves also came from these naturalistic processes-they appear to have supported a form of evolution. On the Nature of Things by the Roman poet and Epicurean Lucretius has many more details. Interestingly, the Epicureans did believe in gods, though perhaps from a Christian view they would be more like superhuman extraterrestrial beings (that may apply to the Greek gods in general). I find it striking in just how much they echo not only the modern scientific findings, but also many philosophical positions common in our day: empiricism, hedonism, naturalism and even social contract theory.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Mar 21, 2016 1:15:43 GMT
Do you have evidence that black holes are not a contributing factor to life? Black holes swallow all matter in their vicinities up. That's evidence against it. I'm not aware of any evidence they contribute to life. I dunno. Do the rags, kerosene, paint drips, and disorder in the artist's studio contribute to the painting?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 21, 2016 1:19:55 GMT
That seems like a poor analogy to me. Here we'd be talking more about a studio which is mostly waste, with only a few actual paintings to show for it all. It would be the mark of a bad artist I'd say.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Mar 22, 2016 23:07:09 GMT
That seems like a poor analogy to me. Here we'd be talking more about a studio which is mostly waste, with only a few actual paintings to show for it all. It would be the mark of a bad artist I'd say. How much of the marble block actually becomes the statue? How many preliminary sketches does the painter make and alter? How many notes and motifs does Beethoven write and scratch out on his drafts? Besides, who says it's waste anyway, or that minimizing waste is a primary constraint on the design? Dark matter, if it exists, is necessary to keep galaxies from flying apart. [Gravity alone cannot account for the fact that all the stars whirl around the galactic center at the same velocity. They ought to move at different speeds depending on their distance, as planets do about their primary. Dark matter is the epicycle introduced to save the appearances. But there is at least one alternate theory that seeks to account for the same phenomenon. So, who knows.] All of these things are consequences of the models of how we think the world works. If our models are correct, then they have to be there. If they were not, the world "wouldn't work right." If that includes black holes swallowing nearby matter -- it's not as bad as all that -- then these black holes are essential to the working of the universe. They can't not be there. They're a feature, not a bug. Perhaps they are galactic vacuum cleaners, sucking up excess matter. Who knows? Hawking has backed off on some of his characterizations, and I have not kept up with things. I am told that if the universe were less massive than it is, it would have dissipated into heat death long before any stars and planets could have formed. And if it were any more massive than it is, it would have collapsed on itself by its own gravitation before stars and galaxies could have produced the heavy elements needed for life. So the world is just as big as it needs to be. If it takes millions of sperm cells to make one fertile egg or a million seeds dispersed to make a flower, why should it not take a universe to make a world?
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Mar 23, 2016 0:15:07 GMT
How much of the marble block actually becomes the statue? How many preliminary sketches does the painter make and alter? How many notes and motifs does Beethoven write and scratch out on his drafts? Besides, who says it's waste anyway, or that minimizing waste is a primary constraint on the design? Dark matter, if it exists, is necessary to keep galaxies from flying apart. [Gravity alone cannot account for the fact that all the stars whirl around the galactic center at the same velocity. They ought to move at different speeds depending on their distance, as planets do about their primary. Dark matter is the epicycle introduced to save the appearances. But there is at least one alternate theory that seeks to account for the same phenomenon. So, who knows.] All of these things are consequences of the models of how we think the world works. If our models are correct, then they have to be there. If they were not, the world "wouldn't work right." If that includes black holes swallowing nearby matter -- it's not as bad as all that -- then these black holes are essential to the working of the universe. They can't not be there. They're a feature, not a bug. Perhaps they are galactic vacuum cleaners, sucking up excess matter. Who knows? Hawking has backed off on some of his characterizations, and I have not kept up with things. I am told that if the universe were less massive than it is, it would have dissipated into heat death long before any stars and planets could have formed. And if it were any more massive than it is, it would have collapsed on itself by its own gravitation before stars and galaxies could have produced the heavy elements needed for life. So the world is just as big as it needs to be. If it takes millions of sperm cells to make one fertile egg or a million seeds dispersed to make a flower, why should it not take a universe to make a world? I think the problem here is comparing this with what human artists do. Yes, for them it makes sense, because the artist is not able to simply create things ex nihilo. However, the designer posited by Christianity is capable of doing that. It might make more sense with a lesser designer, such as superintelligent extraterrestrial beings. It's still not clear if the goal would be to create though. That's also a problem with the artist analogy. We know the goal there-to create a given painting, statue or what have you. Here the goal is exactly the question. I think it's equally plausible for life to be a side effect of the universe's physical characteristics, particularly when you also posit an all-powerful all-good being.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Apr 9, 2016 0:24:40 GMT
Gnostics taught that the material world was evil. A counterargument by orthodox Christians I have seen is to cite Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Yet this was before the Fall, which it is said tainted not only human beings but all things.
The teaching you point to was not really the way Gnostic Christians saw the world.
You have to remember that our myths were invented to put up against the Christian myths at a time before literal reading screwed up the more intelligent seeking after God.
Here is what we really believe.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
IOW. If you do not see God in all, you will never see God at all.
We see matter and the earth as evolving perfection and the best of all possible worlds given all the conditions right to this moment in time.
Regards DL
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Apr 9, 2016 1:16:35 GMT
The teaching you point to was not really the way Gnostic Christians saw the world.
You have to remember that our myths were invented to put up against the Christian myths at a time before literal reading screwed up the more intelligent seeking after God.
Here is what we really believe.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
IOW. If you do not see God in all, you will never see God at all.
We see matter and the earth as evolving perfection and the best of all possible worlds given all the conditions right to this moment in time.
Regards DL
My understanding has been that Gnostics held a variety of beliefs, so it's probably better to say that some viewed things this way. I have not read any of their Gospels myself, so any errors are my own based on second-hand summaries. Also it's unclear to me whether the Manichaeans, Marcionites and Cathars were Gnostic or just similar to them.
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Apr 15, 2016 1:35:23 GMT
The teaching you point to was not really the way Gnostic Christians saw the world.
You have to remember that our myths were invented to put up against the Christian myths at a time before literal reading screwed up the more intelligent seeking after God.
Here is what we really believe.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. [Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
IOW. If you do not see God in all, you will never see God at all.
We see matter and the earth as evolving perfection and the best of all possible worlds given all the conditions right to this moment in time.
Regards DL
My understanding has been that Gnostics held a variety of beliefs, so it's probably better to say that some viewed things this way. I have not read any of their Gospels myself, so any errors are my own based on second-hand summaries. Also it's unclear to me whether the Manichaeans, Marcionites and Cathars were Gnostic or just similar to them.
There was a plethora of different mystery schools in those days. Unfortunately, Christianity did a lot of killing and burning of scriptures and we only have the Gnostic Gospels from the Nag Hammadi find to go by.
It is enough though to give a reasonable picture of what they believed.
It now falls to people like me who claim having experienced or gained Gnosis to try to explain the belief system.
Your issue here was matter.
Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenists and naturalists.
We know that nature creates every organism and all life for the best possible end.
I think that that is an irrefutable statement.
What do you see when you look at nature and us? The best nature could produce, given all the conditions at hand, or do you see us and all of nature as less than what it could possibly be?
Regards DL
|
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Apr 15, 2016 2:47:14 GMT
My understanding has been that Gnostics held a variety of beliefs, so it's probably better to say that some viewed things this way. I have not read any of their Gospels myself, so any errors are my own based on second-hand summaries. Also it's unclear to me whether the Manichaeans, Marcionites and Cathars were Gnostic or just similar to them.
There was a plethora of different mystery schools in those days. Unfortunately, Christianity did a lot of killing and burning of scriptures and we only have the Gnostic Gospels from the Nag Hammadi find to go by.
It is enough though to give a reasonable picture of what they believed.
It now falls to people like me who claim having experienced or gained Gnosis to try to explain the belief system.
Your issue here was matter.
Gnostic Christians are esoteric ecumenists and naturalists.
We know that nature creates every organism and all life for the best possible end.
I think that that is an irrefutable statement.
What do you see when you look at nature and us? The best nature could produce, given all the conditions at hand, or do you see us and all of nature as less than what it could possibly be?
Regards DL
So then no Gnostics believed the universe was created by an evil god (the demiurge)? I had been given to believe this was pretty basic Gnostic belief, along with the corruptness of matter. I guess if not I've been badly misinformed.
I don't think we know that nature creates every organism and all life for the best possible end, unless you mean purely in the sense of natural selection.
My objection is to reconciling what we see with an all-good god. I was given to believe Gnostic had a different perspective on this, however, so that probably doesn't apply to them. I do think it's possible for nature and all we see to be better if such a being exists. The fact that we don't is an indication to me that it doesn't.
|
|