Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference

Let me turn the anthropic principle on its head: if the constants were
not as they are, could there be the kind of life we observe (and are) in
our universe? Next question: does any one want to calculate the
possibility of changes in values compensating each other to make some
form of life possible under different circumstances? How about the
possibility of universes with different forces? It is simple to say that
there are no other universe of different types, but the proof is lacking.

I begin with a deity bright enough and powerful enough to design and
produce a universe that doesn't require further tinkering apart from
spiritual matters. This is an assumption that I cannot prove. I hold that
there is evidence for this view in the birth, life, death and
resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and his impact on his immediate
followers. As George keeps trying to pound home, our entire outlook on
creation needs to center on the Cross.

What effect does this approach have on the possibility that there are
other worlds in our universe with sentient entities? It looks as though
it will be impossible ever to meet them, and difficult ever to contact
them, let alone correspond. Other universes are clearly inaccessible. But
both are in the hands of God. There could be more than one deity for
different universe if we adopt process theology, but I consider that view
ridiclueless.
Dave

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:00:58 -0500 "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
writes:
> Did you even read the article that I provided?
>
> From William Lane Craig:
>
> "Dembski outlines a ten-step Generic Chance Elimination Argument:
> 1.. One learns that some event has occurred.
>
> 2.. Examining the circumstances under which the event occurred,
> one finds
> that the event could only have been produced by a certain chance
> process (or
> processes).
>
> 3.. One identifies a pattern which characterizes the event.
>
> 4.. One calculates the probability of the event given the chance
> hypothesis.
>
> 5.. One determines what probabilistic resources were available for
>
> producing the event via the chance hypothesis.
>
> 6.. On the basis of the probabilistic resources, one calculates
> the
> probability of the event's occurring by chance once out of all the
> available
> opportunities to occur.
>
> 7.. One finds that the above probability is sufficiently small.
>
> 8.. One identifies a body of information which is independent of
> the
> event's occurrence.
>
> 9.. One determines that one can formulate the pattern referred to
> in step
> (3) on the basis of this body of independent information.
>
> 10.. One is warranted in inferring that the event did not occur by
> chance.
>
> This is a simplification of Dembski's analysis, which he develops
> and
> defends with painstaking rigor and detail.
>
> Dembski's analysis will be of interest to all persons who are
> concerned with
> detecting design, including forensic scientists, detectives,
> insurance fraud
> investigators, exposers of scientific data falsification,
> cryptographers,
> and SETI investigators. Intriguingly, it will also be of interest to
> natural
> theologians. For in contemporary cosmology the heated debate
> surrounding the
> fine-tuning of the universe and the so-called Anthropic Principle
> will be
> greatly clarified by Dembski's Law of Small Probability.
>
> Consider the application of the above Generic Chance Elimination
> Argument to
> the fine-tuning of the universe:
>
> 1.. One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in
> the Big
> Bang possess certain values.
>
> 2.. Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred,
> one
> finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render
> physically
> necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they
> must be
> attributed to sheer accident.
>
> 3.. One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities
> are
> incomprehensibly fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent,
> carbon-based
> life.
>
> 4.. The probability of each value and of all the values together
> occurring
> by chance is vanishingly small.
>
> 5.. There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of
> evidence
> to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World
> Ensemble
> of universes) simply to avert the design inference.
>
> 6.. Given that the universe has occurred only once, the
> probability of the
> constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains
> vanishingly
> small.
>
> 7.. This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate
> chance.
>
> 8.. One has physical information concerning the necessary
> conditions for
> intelligent, carbon-based life (e.g., certain temperature range,
> existence
> of certain elements, certain gravitational and electro-magnetic
> forces,
> etc.).
>
> 9.. This information about the finely-tuned conditions requisite
> for a
> life- permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in
> step
> (3).
>
> 10.. One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and
>
> quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.
>
> One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of
> the
> universe are due to design."
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
> To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> Cc: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>;
> <dickfischer@verizon.net>;
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Apologetics Conference
>
>
> > jack syme wrote:
> >
> >> But isnt the fine tuning of the physical constants of the
> universe, used
> >> as an example of specified complexity by the ID folks?
> >
> > No. Specified complexity is something more specific than fine
> tuning.
> > Fine tuning (e.g. the anthropic principle) was around well before
> Dembski
> > introduced the concept of specified complexity. I have no problems
> with
> > fine tuning. I do have problems with specified complexity in
> biological
> > systems.
> > Don
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 16 15:22:45 2006