There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.

[PaulP]

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. 

One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

Quote

 

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. 

Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. 

But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

 

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

Quote

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. **Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.**

[JamesT]

That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God"

It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.

Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day.

Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote? Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?

"There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. One such method is the use of mathematics."

Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it.

"And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator."

Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.

[Prometheus]

58 minutes ago, PaulP said:

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately.

Or there is a far less role of chance in the laws of physics than some suspect. Or the 'pin' was placed into phase space a great many time.

It took me literally 2 seconds to come up with these alternatives to your only possible explanation. Why so fast to go to 'god did it'?

[John Cuthber]

It's "interesting" that someone is saying that Penrose has used maths to show that God exists.

Here's what wiki says about Sir Roger Penrose 

"

Religious views[edit]

Penrose is an atheist.^[31] ...."

 

So, at best, he is being quoted out of context. At worst, someone is deliberately lying.

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It's "interesting" that someone is saying that Penrose has used maths to show that God exists.

Here's what wiki says about Sir Roger Penrose 

"

Religious views[edit]

Penrose is an atheist.^[31] ...."

 

So, at best, he is being quoted out of context. At worst, someone is deliberately lying.

Indeed. His explanation is that the universe is cyclic and so there is no start or creation of the universe to worry about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

 

5 hours ago, PaulP said:

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. **Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.**

Do you realise how stupid this logic is? It is like saying: "I saw something that I couldn't identify. Therefore it was an alien spaceship."

[Bender]

You might want to actually read Penrose instead of relying on misquotes. This topic is discussed in "Road to reality" Chapter 27. (Which I am currently reading after advice from members on this forum.)

It is not the most accessible book, but this Chapter is quite readable.

His conclusion is that any theory about an origin of the universe should be able to explain why the initial entropy is so low, not the opt-out "A wizard did it". He even explicitly says so. 

[PaulP]

17 hours ago, JamesT said:

That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God"

It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.

Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day.

Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote? Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?

"There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. One such method is the use of mathematics."

Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it.

"And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator."

Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.

 

Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lennox and my responses.

That argument seems to be, "This particular universe seems really unlikely, therefore God". It is a failure to understand basic probability (which is sad from a mathematics professor) wrapped with an argument from ignorance. This argument is also refuted by the anthropic principle.

To all of you on here, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it.

Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it.

And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use.

If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are.

***

Vanishingly unlikely things happen every day. For example, what is the likelihood that any particular human being will be born? A particular sperm out of millions had to meet a particular egg under the right conditions, the parents had to meet, each parent was conceived by a particular sperm meeting a particular egg and so on...Yet human beings are born every day.

* Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator.

* And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe.

* And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg.

Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it.

* And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang.

Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe.”

And I very much understand the physics. **You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.**

***

Can you show that the initial conditions used for the calculation represent reality or at least align with our current understanding of the universe? Also, are you just here to copy paste this quote?

And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering.

Lastly, if it were remotely true, wouldn't mathematicians and physicists seeing this convert or at least be more religious than currently is the case?

* Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?

* Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism?

You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant.

Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power.

Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know.

***

Conclusion:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.

 

13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's "interesting" that someone is saying that Penrose has used maths to show that God exists.

Here's what wiki says about Sir Roger Penrose 

"

Religious views[edit]

Penrose is an atheist.^[31] ...."

 

So, at best, he is being quoted out of context. At worst, someone is deliberately lying.

That someone is John Lennox.

Citing from wikipedia means nothing. Even if he is an atheist the argument is still sound.

Edited May 20, 2018 by PaulP

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, PaulP said:

To all of you on atheistrepublic, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it.

But the person you re quoting to support your argument says you are wrong. How about that?

6 minutes ago, PaulP said:

 Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator.

Apart from the fact that your are misusing Penrose's statements to derive a bogus probability, and then leaping from that (via an argument from incredulity) to the conclusion that a god did it ... there is no evidence for a "creation" and therefore no need for a "creator".

8 minutes ago, PaulP said:

* And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang.

Mathematics is not evidence for the Big Bang model; it is the Big Bang model. There is a large body of empirical evidence for the Big Bang model. That is why it is generally accepted. 

9 minutes ago, PaulP said:

And I very much understand the physics.

Except you are apparently unaware of the nature of the Big Bang model and the evidence for it. So I think "very much" might be a slight exaggeration.

11 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power?

Many of them are. And they see no conflict between their faith and the reality of the world around them.

Which is why I am puzzled when people who don't understand the science insist it must be wrong because their faith tells them so.

12 minutes ago, PaulP said:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.

Ironic that you are the one refusing to discuss it and yet you accuse others of not being open minded.

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, PaulP said:

That someone is John Lennox.

Perhaps, but he's not the one spreading that abuse of Penrose's work here

 

6 hours ago, PaulP said:

Even if he is an atheist the argument is still sound.

It's not sound anyway- as has been pointed out.

Anyway, if he's not clever,. he's not worth citing.

If he is clever then we can assume he understands the conclusions from his own work; and he's an atheist.

If you think he's mistaken then you need to show what mistake he made.

[Bender]

8 hours ago, PaulP said:

Conclusion:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.

Why start a topic, if you don't want to debate it? Your position must be very weak if you leave at the first opposition.

8 hours ago, PaulP said:

Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lennox and my responses.

Nobody is poking holes in Penrose. He simply does not support your position. I still encourage you to read his work directly instead of relying on a third party with an obvious agenda. You should be able to find his books in large or university libraries.

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, PaulP said:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.

These words clash weirdly with the responses you received. You cited some evidence to support a position on a higher power, the evidence was critically reviewed and commented on, and your first chance at rebuttal results in walking away for a completely different reason (that the other participants don't share your faith). It's not intellectually honest to move the goalposts like that. 

[John Cuthber]

11 hours ago, Bender said:

Your position must be very weak if you leave at the first opposition.

His position was to start off by quoting someone out of context.
If you start from there it's pretty clear you can't do any better.

Perhaps he was hoping we wouldn't notice.

[Bender]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

His position was to start off by quoting someone out of context.
If you start from there it's pretty clear you can't do any better.

Perhaps he was hoping we wouldn't notice.

To be fair, he was quoting Lennox, who was misquoting Penrose. He might have not known about the context that Lennox didn't provide. Apologist are not known to dig deeper once they think they see their position confirmed.

[YaDinghus]

On 5/21/2018 at 1:02 AM, PaulP said:

Some pathetic attempt

That got you a downvote from me. We're really trying to be civil here. Be glad that we're just poking holes and not smashing it, as we very well could.

*deep breath*

On 5/21/2018 at 1:02 AM, PaulP said:

And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use.

If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are.

Ok, just saying the anthropic principle doesn't refute this when it's a very valid argument doesn't count. You actually have to outline your reasoning.

Also, the Principal isn't a 'what'. That's demeaning. The principal is a 'who'.

*chuckle*

On 5/21/2018 at 1:02 AM, PaulP said:

Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day.

So you're admitting that you violated community rules by trying to convert us to your religion, instead of just discussing the nature of religion. I'm guessing most everyone here has obligations in the real world, too, and would leave as well if they considered it a waste of their time. Well, it's your own fault. This is a pretty tough croud for missionaries, we'd rather watch transformers than be transformed

[Alter2Ego]

On 5/19/2018 at 10:04 PM, PaulP said:

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. 

One such method is the use of mathematics. Oxford University Professor of Mathematics John Lennox quotes renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. **Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.**

PaulP:

Mathematics is one of the ways of proving the existence of Almighty God Jehovah.  Another convincing means is  the scientific method.

Alter2Ego

 

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Edited July 12, 2018 by Alter2Ego

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Mathematics is one of the ways of proving the existence of Almighty God Jehovah. 

Can you show such a proof then?

3 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Another convincing means is  the scientific method.

That means you think that it is possible to perform an experiment to demonstrate the existence of god. Can you describe a suitable experiment and what the results would be?

[Markus Hanke]

On 20/5/2018 at 6:04 AM, PaulP said:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

Sounds like a pretty good argument against the intervention of any conscious creator to me.

The other issue - which seems to go ignored here - is that there is no reason to believe that only one of these universe has been realised. In other words, these arguments all rely on the assumption that our own universe is the only one there is, hence the unlikelihood of its precise properties. But this is not how I understand it - in the primordial quantum foam, all possible universes are realised; and of course only some of them will evolve into macroscopic universes such as the one we are in (since that requires a specific set of conditions), the rest will immediately collapse again and vanish. But if all possibilities are realised, then there is no problem with improbabilities - our universe then is what it is only because we are here to ask the question. If we were any different, we’d find ourselves in a different universe, or if the universe were different, we’d be a different species, or not exist at all. Either way, there is no need for any “outside” intervention - such a concept isn’t even meaningful.

[Itoero]

When people talk about 'god', they mean a personal god, a deity that can be related to as a person.

From an evolutionary point of view this is a ludicrous idea.

There is as much reason to believe in a deity who can be related to as a person as there is to believe in a deity that can be related to as a whale, a dinosaurus,, a pakicetus, oak tree...

On ‎20‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 7:04 AM, PaulP said:

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe. 

You just need to understand evolution to know there is no god. An impersonal force on the other hand can't be proven or disproven....atm.

Mathematics is a language of logic. If anyone claims a calculation proves the existence of god, then he just shows he thinks it's logic for there to be a god.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Itoero

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

Mathematics is one of the ways of proving the existence of Almighty God Jehovah.  Another convincing means is  the scientific method.

!

Moderator Note

This is not the place for you to preach. It is a violation of our rules.

 

[Moontanman]

13 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

PaulP:

Mathematics is one of the ways of proving the existence of Almighty God Jehovah.  Another convincing means is  the scientific method.

Alter2Ego

 

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

 Please give some evidence to back this up, with out evidence all you are doing is making baseless assertions... 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

When people talk about 'god', they mean a personal god, a deity that can be related to as a person.

Not always. The Japanese concept of kami, which is nearly always translated as "god", is definitely not like that. Other pantheistic religions have their own concepts of god which are very different from the Abrahamic idea.

[Carrock]

On 21/05/2018 at 12:02 AM, PaulP said:

Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator

If that was true, the chance of a creator existing without a creator to create it is, essentially, impossible. Plus another creator to create the creator of the creator.....

 

BTW what is an essentially impossible chance?

[Arete]

Lennox's use of Penrose's math is fundamentally flawed, and displays a lack of basic biological knowledge. DNA encodes amino acids in triplicates of base pairs called codons. There are 64 possible codons, encoding 20 amino acids, and stop. The translation of codons into amino acids is highly redundant, with numerous codons denoting each amino acid. 61 encode amino acids, and three encode stop. There are no untranslatable codons. This has a number of implications: 

1) All possible DNA sequences can be translated into proteins. There is no such thing as a "gibberish" DNA code. 

2) Because of the redundancy, multiple changes can occur without affecting the translation of the sequence. 

3) Therefore comparisons of gibberish and junkyards to DNA code are not apt. unlike written language and scrapheaps, there is no such thing as an untranslatable gene. 

4) Arguments from low probability are not apt. Given all possible arrangements of nucleotides can encode proteins, there are no null sequences. Consider it more like a dice throw. Rolling one hundred sixes in a row has a probability of (1/6)¹⁰⁰ or 1.5 x 10^-78. Except ALL combinations of 100 throws have this probability and if you perform the experiment, an outcome is inevitable. Claiming that the low probability makes the outcome impossible ex post facto is not sensible. 

Edited July 13, 2018 by Arete

[Moontanman]

19 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

PaulP:

Mathematics is one of the ways of proving the existence of Almighty God Jehovah.  Another convincing means is  the scientific method.

Alter2Ego

 

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Are you ignoring my questions? 

[beecee]

On 5/20/2018 at 3:04 PM, PaulP said:

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. **Deliberate action requires a conscious creator.**

And what sort of action took place for this creator to come to being? Was there a previous magical spaghetti  monster that created this being that created the universe. Why not be honest and answer that question as put by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

So please drop all your pretentious nonsense about god being mathematically proved..it is a whole lot of bunkum and you know that as I do and most on this forum knows.

Quote

That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Some gullible people like you might prefer it this way in actual fact......That people may know that you, whose name is Allah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Koran verses 83:18

 

Either way it is a total myth.