Theism explains our existence better than Atheism ?

[Achsah]

Fair enough. It is possible that this entire universe is some sort on highly improbable quantum fluctuation however I have my doubts. Again, I maintain the universe has always existed. Exactly what this entails or every little nuance regarding its nature is not currently (and possibly never will be ) known. However invoking a god certainly only seems to unnecessarily complicate the issue.

Your idea, the universe had always existed , arise several issues.
First, the current,most accepted cientific model, the Big Bang Thery, stands over eighty years, and evidence, our universe had a absolute beginning, stands firmer and firmer.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html

Secondly , if our universe were eternal, how do you deal with the second law of thermodynamics ? our universe would be today in a state of heath death.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... g-t199.htm

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system. That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

Third, Why can't the past be infinite?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philoso ... e-t178.htm

The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

a more extended explanation, which alouds a better understanding, you find here :

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5231

Okay, before I go any further, let met get one thing out in the open. Lee Strobel is a Liar. He is also a scientific illiterate. I will be glad to address ANY claim made in that horrific book on a case by case basis. To demonstrate the dishonesty of Strobel, one needs only read the first chapter of his book. He claims to be attempting to investigate the "case for a creator" from an unbiased prospective. Yet, throughout the entire book, he fails to interview even ONE non-theist. He cherry picks his "experts" from the very brim of the fringe. The man is a complete and total assclown. I believe I have fairly addressed your "virtual particle" quote above. If you would like more detail regarding this I would be glad to oblige however the point is evidently moot. Invoking a god does not actually explain anything...it merely brings in another factor in need of an explanation.

I would suggest that you stop attacking proponents of theism, and just concentrate to debate the ideas. The parts i have read of strobels book, have been highly educating for me. in my opinion, its a excellent book, which explains a series of issues in a manner, which is easy to understand for the layman.

I think that was doug's point, actually. Your argument was not understandable. It's not even clear to me that speaking of something "outside" the universe is even a meaningful idea. It's kind of like the word "supernatural". If we observe something supernatural, it is thus part of nature, and therefor, by definition, no longer supernatural. If something exist "outside" the boundary of the universe, that implies the universe, by definition, includes this something and thus it can't be outside the universe. The idea of "outside the universe" is non-since.

We can just define it as outside of beyond of our dimension.

Perhaps you don't understand how this works. Allow me to explain. You make an assertion and it is up to you to support said assertion logically. You have not demonstrated any logically consistent argument that even begins to suggest that the universe IS finite, but even if this is assumed to be true, you certainly have not shown how this in any way suggest the existence of a creator of ANY kind.

I am in perfect agreement of main science, which suggests, the universe had a beginning. At least Penrose, Davies, Vilenkin, and the series of scientists, i have quoted of godandscience homepage, agree with this view.

I believe the entire universe was designed to host US.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

Its not a assertion. its a statement of faith. Thats different.

Have you taken a look around the neighborhood? It's rather large and exceedingly non-conducive to life--of any kind. The fact that the universe allows life to exist is rather fascinating. One is certainly left to wonder how probable life is given certain conditions. That being said, I don't see how anything you have said here lends any credence for the existence of a creator. Your argument seems to be, "The universe is BIG...as it would need to be to support the evolution of life on at least one planet...and as we are here, this is no surprise." I don't see how the existence of any god plays into this argument at all.

then let us put it this way. The universe could have inumerous properties, which would not permit life to arise. Lee Smolin has calculated the odds to one of 10^220. What makes you feel, chance is a good explanation, facing this kind of probability ? You seem very credulous.....

a very unlikely mistake to happen by chance, btw.

But the point remains, if I have no confidence in MY ability to assess such probabilities, I damn sure know Strobel doesn't have a clue!

Oh, i see, its just guesswork then. You actualy just GUESS Strobel has no clue. That might be, but the scientists, he interviewed, are specialists in their field......
Beside this, i can cite you tons of sources, which make similar assertions. So, what is your point again ?

In fact, the very attempt is actually a statistical fallacy as it is impossible to do any kind of statistics with a sample size of ONE! Life may be INCREDIBLY probable. It is very possible that this is, for reasons unknown, the only universe that COULD exist and it is TEAMING with life. It could be that many untold "micro-verses" exist and life abounds in them as well. It could be that there is life in every nook and cranny...it could be that we are alone. We have absolutely nothing to go on here but conjecture. Thus your assertion above is ludicrous.

Tell it to these scientists, which do not agree with you....

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... se-t31.htm

this is btw. not phallacy of authority, since these scientists are all specialists in their field. They know what they are talking about.

Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”


George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”


Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”


Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”


George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”


Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”


Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”


Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”


Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”


Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”


Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”


Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”


Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”


Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”


Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”


Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”


Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”


Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Taking this a face value, two questions certainly need to be addressed:

1) Are the physical constants of the universe chosen randomly? I see no reason to assume they were. My guess is they simply are what they are and thus any talk of statistical probability of them being what they are is meaningless. If this is the only universe that DOES exist, then the probability of its physical constants having the value they do is identically equal to 1.

BS. There could be in fact a infinite number of different universes, non life permitting. But a life permitting universe exists. This needs a explanation.

If there is an expansive multiverse of which we are just one, and each has varying physical constants, the probability that we would find ourselves in one capable of supporting life of our kind is also identically 1. We sure as hell wouldn't have evolved in a universe incapable of supporting such life.

Yes, this is the only escape atheists have, to avoid this design argument. A very poor one, btw. First of all, because its entirely unscientific. No evidence at all exists for such a multiverse. Istead a Multiverse, replace it with the pink Maccarroni Monster with Banana sauce as origin of the universe, and you have the same argument. Its simply not backed up by anything. Only by the wish, no God shall exist. But lets see further. Even if such a Multiverse would exist, it would not avoid God. Vilenkin, which is proponent of this hypothesis, writes in his book :

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

So you have still a absolute beginning, thus need to explain the cause of that multiverse.

Moreover :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... es-t20.htm

One of the more common explanations seems to be “There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them.”
The “infinite universes” theory is truly an amazing theory. Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible… It’s actually happened!
It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There’s a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn’t get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There’s even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities!
I might sound like I’m joking, but actually I’m dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

2) Is carbon chemistry the only viable option to support life? Is it even reasonable to assume that matter, space, energy, and time are the only components of reality that COULD exist. We are stepping beyond the realm of conjecture at this point. I really don't see how any of this in any way argues for the existence of a creator.

Yes, silicon is not a viable alternative, as it has been proposed by some people.

What design argument...you haven't made one yet. You have thus far failed to provide ANY reasonable argument for design. In the absence of evidence pointing towards a designer, the default position is that one does not exist.

Its funny. Its not me alone, but even atheist scientists, like Dawkins, aknowledge the universe seems designed. So why should there then not be a designer ?

[Doug]

Lee Smolin has calculated the odds to one of 10^220. What makes you feel, chance is a good explanation, facing this kind of probability ? You seem very credulous.....

DOUG writes:
A. Smolin does not think that the universe came about by chance. He thinks that universes produce black holes that give birth to new universes, and that this takes place due to laws of nature, not chance.
B. Smolin makes a case that the universe had a very high probability of coming about by natural causes. So he's not exactly on your side of the matter, is he? If you want to bring him in to the discussion, you are shooting your own foot. If you cite him as an authority, you must resign yourself to the fact that he is going to be more helpful to me than to you.
C. What is the probability of a ghost making a universe exist by magic? CAn you show that the odds are less than one out of 10^220? How could you show that? And if you can't, you have no case.

So show that the odds of a ghost making the universe exist by magic are less than one out of 10^220.

[Dardedar]

Good heavens, of all of the above I just happened to grab the same couple sentences Doug went for. I thought you might go for the Kalam Cosmological bit Doug.

ACH
The universe could have inumerous properties, which would not permit life to arise.">>

DAR
You don't know that. It could be that universes only come in one variety, this one. Our cosmological constants may just be brute facts. Also, we have no idea how many different ways life may possibly arise.

Lee Smolin has calculated the odds to one of 10^220.

DAR
But this assumes all of the cosmological attributes have equal probability of being something other than they are. A huge assumption. We would need examples of other universe possibilities and we don't (and won't) have any.

What makes you feel, chance is a good explanation, facing this kind of probability?

DAR
Again, you can't show it is chance and you can't calculate the probability until you know the variables. As to improbability, it's quite easy to show, statistically, after the fact that your existence is far more improbable than any statistic you have provided yet. Stack as many "trillions" as you like. Yet, nonetheless, here you are. Amazing. What are the odds? Let's think about it.

The male body makes about 1,500 sperm a second (129 million a day). Each one is unique. To make little Achsah it took that one sperm meeting that one egg (of the hundreds of thousands of eggs your mum had). Let's say your dad had 30 fertile years. That's about 1,400 trillion sperm he made during that time. And we needed just that one, to get to just the right egg during your mom's 25 or so years of fertility. Perhaps our math mathematician can calculate the odds on this. It's going to involve a very high stack of "trillions."

But wait. That's just one single generation. Going back each generation the odds of your existence decrease exponentially. And we have the added variable of multiple mates needing to find each other at just the right time.

So do we say you don't exist because statistically it's nigh impossible? No, we say, here you are. And we ask you to stop engaging in silly statistical, after the fact games.

ACH
even atheist scientists, like Dawkins, aknowledge the universe seems designed. So why should there then not be a designer ?

DAR
Is this the argument from "why should there not then be a designer?" I think so. Let's see this Dawkins quote. It would have been something he said right before he pointed out that it does not follow that because something may seem to be designed, that is designed. See snowflakes, see crystals and dozens of other things that appear to be designed but are not.

You seem to be impressed with Lee Strobel. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some of the critical examinations of his material. Begin here:

The Case Against Faith: A Critical Look at Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith

D.

[kwlyon]

Your idea, the universe had always existed , arise several issues.
First, the current,most accepted cientific model, the Big Bang Thery, stands over eighty years, and evidence, our universe had a absolute beginning, stands firmer and firmer.

I absolutely accept the "Big Bang Theory" as an exceedingly well verified theory. I do not accept, and the theory does not assert, that this was the absolute beginning to all that is and time came into existence at this point and proceeded to the current in a linear fashion. There is a myriad of possibilities. Given the papers I have read most recently and the work I am currently undertaking, I am a bit enamored with the possibility that the universe may be just one huge quantum system which may undergo periodic wave revivals we call "big bangs". But the truth is, I have no idea. I do know this, however, there is no physical issue with the universe having existed forever. We just don't know enough about it at this point to get much beyond conjecture.

Secondly , if our universe were eternal, how do you deal with the second law of thermodynamics ? our universe would be today in a state of heath death.

I don't. The eventual "heat death" of the universe may be nothing more than the prediction of an overly simplistic theory. Certainly if the universe undergoes some kind of "quantum beat" periodically, we will find ourselves back exactly where we started. If there is some kind of "big crunch" we effectively hit the system reset button at every cycle. Even if the universe WILL eventually end in heat death, and time does not extend back beyond the "big bang", time is a rathe ill understood phenomenon. It is still very possible that the universe is "eternal" in the since that it has always been here. The point to be made is, we simply do not know enough at the current time regarding the nature of the universe.

Science supports Einstein's claim that the universe is a closed system. That means it has finite energy. Even though energy cannot be created or destroyed (by any natural processes), over time the useful energy in the universe becomes more and more useless. This is known in science as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If the universe were eternal then all of the energy would have become totally useless by now and I wouldn't be writing this article and you wouldn't be reading it either!

Actually, the universe being a closed system only means that energy does not come into or exit the universe. However I will agree that the energy of OUR observable universe is likely finite. I will not, necessarily agree, that our observable universe is all there is, and that it is now, or has always been, a completely closed system. I am not a big string theory fan however, if it does pan out in the end, it has some interesting things to say regarding OUR universe as a closed system. Again, there are plenty of possibilities under which the heat death of the universe would never occur. Are you aware that our universe is not just expanding, but that the expansion is undergoing a positive acceleration? We have NO explanation for this phenomenon at present however it has been very well verified. I have no idea what the implications of this will be, but it is clear that our model of the universe is quite incomplete as it fails to explain its observed motion.

Third, Why can't the past be infinite?
**link omitted**
The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

I take issue with this assertion. It is impossible to count to infinity because that would take an infinite amount of time. In counting, you are starting from a finite point, and proceeding to move towards infinity at a finite rate. However, who said you must START at any particular point? We exist at this point in space and time. If there is an infinite regress in time, this is where WE exist. There is no physical reason why, even if time were linear, it could not extend backwards and forwards into infinity. Ironically, people have less trouble accepting this if the universe is cyclic. However the argument is the same regardless of the geometry of space time. One does not need to complete an infinite successive addition as the universe already exist, whatever it's nature.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

Again, this is an assertion regarding the nature of the universe that I find rather dubious. It is very possible that we live in a deterministic universe--that tomorrow, today, and yesterday are all non-negotiable. Even if tomorrow is up for grabs, this doesn't negate the possibility of an infinitely extending past. We are here...that is all that can be said with any confidence.

I would suggest that you stop attacking proponents of theism, and just concentrate to debate the ideas. The parts i have read of strobels book, have been highly educating for me. in my opinion, its a excellent book, which explains a series of issues in a manner, which is easy to understand for the layman.

Sorry, but no. Lee Strobel is a liar. There comes a time when one must simply take off the gloves and speak the truth. You have not been educated by anything in Storbel's book...you have been miseducated. Strobel is not a liar for his rather poor understanding of science, he is a liar because he IS A JOURNALIST and is very much aware of how to objectively approach a subject. In his book, The Case For a Creator, he claims:

My approach would be to cross-examine authorities in various scientific disciplines about the most current findings in their fields. In selecting these experts, I sought doctorate-level professors who have unquestioned expertise, are able to communicate in accessible language, and who refuse to limit themselves only to the politically correct world of naturalism or materialism. After all, it wouldn't make sense to rule out any hypothesis at the onset. I wanted the freedom to pursue all possibilities.

Yet, with VERY few exceptions, his "experts" are NOT experts in the fields for which he is seeking their imput! In the few exceptions, when he actually interviews someone who IS degreed IN the field of which he is inquiring, he cheery picks someone who holds an extreme minority opinion and then fails to represent the majority opinion. This is very clear, dishonest journalism. This is why I maintain that Lee Strobel is not just wrong, he is a lIAR...and, as a well studied journalist, he is aware of the unethical nature of his deception I assure you.

The other thing I find fascinating about this quote is Strobels failure to understand that science IS BY DEFINITION naturalistic! The pursuit of science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanation and understanding of the world around us. He doesn't seem to understand this...

I think that was doug's point, actually. Your argument was not understandable. It's not even clear to me that speaking of something "outside" the universe is even a meaningful idea. It's kind of like the word "supernatural". If we observe something supernatural, it is thus part of nature, and therefor, by definition, no longer supernatural. If something exist "outside" the boundary of the universe, that implies the universe, by definition, includes this something and thus it can't be outside the universe. The idea of "outside the universe" is non-since.

We can just define it as outside of beyond of our dimension.

Um, no. If other dimensions exist, then they are part of nature and are certainly not supernatural. For that matter, if GOD exist, he is part of nature and therefor not supernatural. I am certainly not opposed to such a component of nature...I would like to see evidence for it.

Perhaps you don't understand how this works. Allow me to explain. You make an assertion and it is up to you to support said assertion logically. You have not demonstrated any logically consistent argument that even begins to suggest that the universe IS finite, but even if this is assumed to be true, you certainly have not shown how this in any way suggest the existence of a creator of ANY kind.

I am in perfect agreement of main science, which suggests, the universe had a beginning. At least Penrose, Davies, Vilenkin, and the series of scientists, i have quoted of godandscience homepage, agree with this view.

Again I don't see your point. This is not a response to MY point above...

I believe the entire universe was designed to host US.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

Its not a assertion. its a statement of faith. Thats different.

Please explain to me how a statement of faith is different from an assertion...

Have you taken a look around the neighborhood? It's rather large and exceedingly non-conducive to life--of any kind. The fact that the universe allows life to exist is rather fascinating. One is certainly left to wonder how probable life is given certain conditions. That being said, I don't see how anything you have said here lends any credence for the existence of a creator. Your argument seems to be, "The universe is BIG...as it would need to be to support the evolution of life on at least one planet...and as we are here, this is no surprise." I don't see how the existence of any god plays into this argument at all.

then let us put it this way. The universe could have inumerous properties, which would not permit life to arise. Lee Smolin has calculated the odds to one of 10^220. What makes you feel, chance is a good explanation, facing this kind of probability ? You seem very credulous.....

Yes, it could have properties which would not permit life to arise...it does not. This is certainly what we would expect as we are here. Lee Smolin did not calculate those odds. He made them up. I have already explain this to you. It is impossible, given our current understanding of the universe, to asses odds regarding the values of the physical constants. Still, this is a moot point as, whatever the odds, here we are.

a very unlikely mistake to happen by chance, btw.

But the point remains, if I have no confidence in MY ability to assess such probabilities, I damn sure know Strobel doesn't have a clue!

Oh, i see, its just guesswork then. You actualy just GUESS Strobel has no clue. That might be, but the scientists, he interviewed, are specialists in their field......
Beside this, i can cite you tons of sources, which make similar assertions. So, what is your point again ?

No, Strobel has DEMONSTRATED he does not understand basic scientific inquiry. And YES! The scientist he interviewed are specialist in THEIR fields I am sure...but they are NOT, with few exceptions, specialist in the fields of which they were interviewed! Interesting that he would not interview a cosmologist with regards to cosmology! My point is, the fact that you can sight tons of sources making random, baseless assertions does not constitute an argument any more than quoting fabricated statistics.

In fact, the very attempt is actually a statistical fallacy as it is impossible to do any kind of statistics with a sample size of ONE! Life may be INCREDIBLY probable. It is very possible that this is, for reasons unknown, the only universe that COULD exist and it is TEAMING with life. It could be that many untold "micro-verses" exist and life abounds in them as well. It could be that there is life in every nook and cranny...it could be that we are alone. We have absolutely nothing to go on here but conjecture. Thus your assertion above is ludicrous.

Tell it to these scientists, which do not agree with you....

Gladly! Say, why don't you undertake a little experiment. Email a few of these scientist and ASK them if they agree with me:) I can't help but notice that MANY of them are, in fact atheist! Still, I must point out that this IS an appeal to authority. You are not presenting me with their arguments, but rather with an assertion that they accept the "fine tuning==god" argument. This is a horrifically fallacious argument and the fact that a handful of scientist are goober enough to accept it is little more than sad.

this is btw. not phallacy of authority, since these scientists are all specialists in their field. They know what they are talking about.

Um....no....sorry I won't concede that. What I will concede is that MANY of these scientist believe in a god who is responsible for the creation of the universe. Many of my associates are theist...but they don't buy the fine tuning garbage. And you need to look over your list. There are a few outspoken atheist here:)

Taking this a face value, two questions certainly need to be addressed:

1) Are the physical constants of the universe chosen randomly? I see no reason to assume they were. My guess is they simply are what they are and thus any talk of statistical probability of them being what they are is meaningless. If this is the only universe that DOES exist, then the probability of its physical constants having the value they do is identically equal to 1.

BS. There could be in fact a infinite number of different universes, non life permitting. But a life permitting universe exists. This needs a explanation.

How can you assert this? There may be an infinite number of universes, or there may not. It is entirely possible that this is the only universe that could exist. I agree that why the universe is the way it is needs explanation--that is what we are up to! There is, however, nothing about this universe that is "unexpected" precisely because we don't know what we SHOULD expect based upon a single data point.

If there is an expansive multiverse of which we are just one, and each has varying physical constants, the probability that we would find ourselves in one capable of supporting life of our kind is also identically 1. We sure as hell wouldn't have evolved in a universe incapable of supporting such life.

Yes, this is the only escape atheists have, to avoid this design argument. A very poor one, btw. First of all, because its entirely unscientific. No evidence at all exists for such a multiverse. Istead a Multiverse, replace it with the pink Maccarroni Monster with Banana sauce as origin of the universe, and you have the same argument. Its simply not backed up by anything. Only by the wish, no God shall exist. But lets see further. Even if such a Multiverse would exist, it would not avoid God. Vilenkin, which is proponent of this hypothesis, writes in his book :

No evidence exist at all for god...again MY point remains quite solid. We just don't have enough information to go on at this point. Invoking god is, for many reasons, far more of a stretch than invoking the idea of a multiverse. However both are possible. The former requires quite a bit of explanation itself. You don't seem willing to broach the question of "Where did this God come from?"

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

So you have still a absolute beginning, thus need to explain the cause of that multiverse.

If we get to that point, there will be things to understand about this multiverse. However, at some point, what exist exist. The issue here is a sort of equivocism. You seek explanation in the since of purpose--there may well not be a purpose. Some things just are.

The “infinite universes” theory is truly an amazing theory. Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible… It’s actually happened!
It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There’s a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn’t get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There’s even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities!
I might sound like I’m joking, but actually I’m dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

Yea, I don't really like the infinite universe theory. Not because it is in any way implausible, but rather because it is just so damn complicated. It makes for great stargage episodes however I don't think it will yield good science. It's just something to chat about over coffee.

2) Is carbon chemistry the only viable option to support life? Is it even reasonable to assume that matter, space, energy, and time are the only components of reality that COULD exist. We are stepping beyond the realm of conjecture at this point. I really don't see how any of this in any way argues for the existence of a creator.

Yes, silicon is not a viable alternative, as it has been proposed by some people.

You just assert this:) I am not sure why I should accept this. But even if silicon is not a viable alternative, you seem to have missed MY point entirely. Read it again and give it another go.

What design argument...you haven't made one yet. You have thus far failed to provide ANY reasonable argument for design. In the absence of evidence pointing towards a designer, the default position is that one does not exist.

Its funny. Its not me alone, but even atheist scientists, like Dawkins, aknowledge the universe seems designed. So why should there then not be a designer ?

Seeming designed and BEING designed are two rather different fish. Be that as it may, there may well be a designer...however its existence will certainly only complicate the issue as we now must explain its existence.

Let me suggest something. Let's take this exchange on a point by point basis as I don't have time to respond on this order of magnitude and put much effort into my responses. If you really are here to learn WHY these arguments are untenable, then you deserve higher quality and that will, at least in my case, have to come at the sacrifice of quantity. Pick an item you want to discuss in greater detail from this exchange and I will address it.

Thanks for the Chat,

Kevin

**Update: Darrel has done an EXCELLENT job addressing your "statistics" above. You see, Darrel has a bit more experience than me responding to these types of threads and doesn't get as easily roped into the "information overload" rhetoric as I do. He has picked a small portion of your material to respond to and has done an excellent job. I suggest we adopt a similar, single issue at a time format, for future exchanges:)

[kwlyon]

Achsah,

Reading back over my response I think I would like to clarify my position as it might help to better direct our exchanges. First of all, it seems to me that the large issue here is that you, like most non scientist, do not have a very solid understanding of what we do and do not know regarding the universe we find ourselves in. We have spend a great deal of time basically shooting the quintessential shit about topics that are quite beyond our current understanding of the universe. This can be a lot of fun, but I don't believe it is very conducive to recognizing good science. I think it would be a good idea if we spent some time discussing exactly where that line of current knowledge lies.

Also, I would like to make my intentions clear. I have NO vested interest in what you believe regarding gods or wizards or zombies. In the spirit of full disclosure, I very much want to believe in my own immortality, and I would LIKE there to be a god which exhibits all the positive attributes I would so readily ascribe to him. I do not accept that the existence of such a god, or any god for that matter, is probable. I also must concede that personal immortality is likewise exceedingly improbable. But this really has nothing to do with the price of cheese in denmark. What I DO have a vested interest in, is the publics understanding of science. Currently this certainly lacks a lot to be desired. So, what I am getting at, is I am not arguing for the atheist cause. I am arguing against anti-science and profiteers of misinformation.

Hope to hear from you again. Remember, lets take things one topic at a time if we can. I have quite a lot to get done before monday morning! And you deserve more than a flippant response to the issue you have raised.

Kevin

[Achsah]

To knock down your argument, all I need to show is that you have not made a case, and I have shown that.

Who has knocked down a argument, is me so far. You can choose another one, than virtual particles. You need a LOT of faith to believe, these could be a reasonable explanation for the existence of our universe.

Citing reams of work from a theology website is unconvincing. What is convincing is that scientists have worked with the inflationary model of the universe, as appearing from a vacuum fluctuation, and it is the prevailing model in science today.

And where did the preconditions, AkA your vacuum field, come from, to create these vacuum fluctiations ?

The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, of the City University in New York, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.

See here.

this is a theory, which is far from being able to explain the origin of the universe without a creator, convincingly. And this, not based on arguments of theists, but atheists:

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... 65.htm#392

"The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."

"In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever."

"As Barrow and Tipler comment, "It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble Universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum 'creation ex nihilo,' for the quantum mechanical vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, either Minkowski or de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true 'creation ex nihilo' would be the spontaneous generation of everything--space-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matter--at some time in the past."([1986], p. 441)."

Ghosts making things out of magic has NO evidential support, no theoretical structure, and does not provide any kind of competing model for an explanation of the universe. "It's magic" is not an explanation. It provides no knowledge.

absolutely nothing is much worse as a reasonable explanation that that. Its worse than the rabbit out of the magicians hat.

In other words, in the marketplace of ideas, you have nothing to bring to the table.

bring a better alternative, and we talk. Your quantum speculation fails in my view. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. Period.

You said that the cause of the universe must be "beyond" the universe. By that logic, the cause of the Great Pyramids must be "beyond" Egypt. That obviously does not follow, so your reasoning is obviously flawed.

Your comparison fails at all ends. the pyramids were built by the aegyptians. the universe also needed someone to create it. Neither do you imagine, the pyramids arose out of absolutely nothing.

The lack of time, space, matter, etc. has nothing to do with being a person, being finite or infinite, being weak or powerful.

i think actually, all this can follow logically. the univerese had a beginning, therefore a cause. since beyond the universe, nothing physical existed, the cause of the universe had to be spiritual ( non physical ). Beside this, it had to decide to create the universe. So it had to be personal. Personal and spiritual. Fits perfectly to the description of the god of the bible.

So those properties do not follow from the lack of the set of the former properties. You could just as well say that the lack of time, space, or matter implies that the creator of the universe was blue, or green. It just doesn't follow since the concepts are logically independent from the concepts you purport that they derive from.

i dont think so. If there was no time, no space, and no matter, beyond the universe, the cause of the universe had to be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Follows perfectly. Perfectly logical and rational.

Well, as I have already shown, that is flawed reasoning too. Especially since humans have existed in so little time in comparison with the age of the universe, AND the majority of life on Earth is aquatic, AND most land life is insects. So if "us" refers to human beings, you have given no reason at all to think that the universe was designed for human beings. You can't even show that the Earth was designed for human beings, let alone the whole universe.

With 'us', i refere to all lively beings on earth. And, no. You have not shown any flawed reasoning of mine. Try harder.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... 9.htm#1225

1. The exact mass of the universe was necessary for life supporting elements to exist. Life requires heavier elements such as oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These elements are produced in the nuclear furnaces of stars. If there were less mass in the universe, only lighter elements such as helium would be produced. If there were more mass, only heavier elements, such as iron, would be produced. In fact, the amount of mass and dark energy in the universe must be fine tuned to less than one part in 10 to the 60th power, or one part in one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, to have a universe that can create a life supporting solar system and planet.

2. The exact mass of the universe was required to regulate the expansion of the universe to allow the formation of the sun and the solar system. Amazingly, it turns out that the same total mass that results in the right mix of life supporting elements also results in the right amount of gravity to dampen the expansion of matter across the surface of the space-time continuum to allow the formation of stars like the sun which are capable of supporting a planet like earth. If the universe were expanding faster, stars and solar systems would not form. If the universe were expanding slower, giant stars and black holes would dominate the universe. Once again the total matter in the universe is fine tuned to support life. And what an amazing coincidence: the number that creates the right mix of elements also creates the right expansion rate. This dual fine tuning is much less likely than achieving the financial returns guaranteed by Bernie Madoff!

3. The vast volume of the universe is required to give the earth just the right amount of light and other electromagnetic radiation to support life and not destroy it. Life not only requires a planet with the right mix of elements orbiting the right kind of sun in just the right solar system; it also requires a “just right” galactic environment. Astronomers has discovered what they call “the galactic habitable zone” for our Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 26,000 light years from the center of the galaxy. Any planet closer to the center will experience deadly radiation levels. Any planet further away from the center would lack the mix of heavy elements necessary for advanced life. But the vast majority of this habitable zone is inside one of the uninhabitable spiral arms of the galaxy. Since stars revolve around the galactic center at a rate different than the spiral arm structure based on their distance from the center of the galaxy, most solar systems pass through deadly spiral arms over the course of time. Our solar system occupies a very special place as Hugh Ross points out: “The solar system holds a special position in the Milky Way . . . the one distance from the core where stars orbit the galaxy at the same rate as its spiral arm structure does.”

Most of the universe, as far as we know, is lifeless. So if there is life in one little part, we are more justified in saying that this life is just a fluke, a mistake, than in saying that it is the purpose of the whole thing.

a very unlikely mistake to happen by chance, btw.

Better odds for that than the odds that a ghost made life by magic powers. Can you show that such a thing is MORE likely than the chance production of life by natural causes?

absolutely. I have done so, already. but you simply ignore the numbers. why that, despite the fact, they are from secular well respected scientists ?

You can't even show that ghosts or gods exist, so ipso facto you can't show what kinds of things they can create. At least with natural forces, we can know that these natural forces exist, so the odds that existing things did something will ALWAYS be better than the odds that nonexisting things did it.

but thats exactly what you assert. That non existing things ( nothing ) , created everything by chance...... To argue, the universe created itself, is utmost irrational, since how could it create itself, if it did not exist beyond its beginning ?

Right, so he doesn't believe that the universe appeared randomly.

thats not what he said. He just showed how small probability is, it to happen by chance.

Rather, he believes that universes tend toward parameters that are optimum for the production of black holes, and that black holes produce other universes. So he thinks that our universe was spawned by a black hole in another universe.

thats what he believes. Let him believe, whatever he wishes. It might make sense to him. To me, it makes no sense whatsoever.

If we want to know what the purpose of an artifact X is, we should look to see what X does. If it was designed well, it should show its function in what it produces or what it does. Most of the universe does not produce life, as far as we know. So whatever purpose the universe has, it is clearly unrelated to life. That's just common sense.

there is not only the factor of quantity, but also of quality. Mere quantity and size does not necessarly say something about purpose.

You have NO evidence that the universe was designed to produce one lifehosting planet, so your claim is unsupported and totally ad hoc.

thats a desperate, baseless assertion. Even secular scientists aknowledge , the universe was designed to produce life. You don't admit it, thats just a argument of incredulity.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... se-t31.htm

Astronomer Fred Hoyle reports that his atheism was shaken by his own discovery that in the stars, carbon just manages to form and then just avoids complete conversion into oxygen. If one atomic level had varied half a per cent, life would have been impossible. "Would you not say to yourself . . . 'Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule' ? Of course you would. . . . The carbon atom is a fix.

. . .A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Engineering and Science, November 1981).

"Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," concludes Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist (quoted in Science News, September 3, 1983, p. 152). Stephen Hawking, the Einstein of our time, agrees: "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" (John Boslough, Stephen Hawking's Universe, p. 121). How the various physical processes are "fine-tuned to such stunning accuracy is surely one of the great mysteries of cosmology," remarks P. C. W. Davies, a physicist. "Had this exceedingly delicate tuning of values been even slightly upset, the subsequent structure of the universe would have been totally different." "Extraordinary physical coincidences and apparently accidental cooperation . . . offer compelling evidence that something is 'going on.' . . . A hidden principle seems to be at work" (The Accidental Universe, p. 90, p. 110).

B. I. Carr and M. J. Rees, cosmologists, conclude, "Many interrelations between different scales that at first sight seem surprising are straightforward consequences of simple physical arguments. But several aspects of our Universe—some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life—depend rather delicately on apparent ‘coincidences' among the physical constants. . . . The Universe must be as big and diffuse as it is to last long enough to give rise to life" ("The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World," Nature, April 12, 1979).

No universe can provide several billion years of stellar cooking time unless it is several billion light years across. If the size of the universe were reduced from 1022 to 1011 stars, that smaller but still galaxy-sized universe might seem roomy enough, but it would run through its entire cycle of expansion and recontraction in about one year. And if the matter of the universe were not as homogeneous as it is, then large portions of it would have been so dense that they would already have undergone gravitational collapse. Other portions would have been so thin that they could not have given birth to galaxies and stars. On the other hand, if it were entirely homogeneous, then the chunks of matter that make development possible could not have assembled. (See John A. Wheeler, "The Universe as Home for Man." in Owen Gingerich, editor, The Nature of Scientific Discovery.)

I notice you did not try to rebut my machine shop analogy.

i missed it.

[Achsah]

I hope you aren't trying to use Aristotle's definition of an efficient cause, because you are doing so incorrectly. But whether you are or not, you have not explained how efficiency is related to our issue. Your question is a non sequitur.

A designer, able to create a universe as ours, must obviously be inimaginably powerful, therefore efficient. Nothing has no properties at all, and is therefore inefficient.

what we know, is the needed finetuning of the Big Bang so that our universe would not collapse right in the beginning. The odds are staggering.

What we know is that this universe did not collapse. We don't know that we "needed" it. That begs the question that this universe was intended, which is exactly the question at issue, so you commit the fallacy of begging the question.

That is exactly the issue. Why did it not collapse, if chance, it would so, were almost infinitely large ?

And since we don't know how many different kinds of universes can exist, we can't say that the odds of this one are unlikely.

if the constants were met, and something had the power to create them, there could theoretically exist a almost infinite number of universes. IF........

Ok, so you quote Newton who gives NO evidence but just repeats your mere assertion. That does not help your case. You still have no evidence.

why do you consider the fact, that the universe is finely tuned to life, no evidence ? again. thats a argument of incredulity.

Compare: A person walks into a mall and kills 999 out of 1000 people in it. So you conclude that the shooter's purpose was to preserve the life of the lone survivor. That's a highly selective omission of most of the available evidence.

See it the other way around. There were one trillion shooters, to kill one man, at 10m of distance. All miss to shoot the guy.... that would be a incredible coincidence, dont you think ?

You're doing the same thing with the evidence of the universe. One planet of billions upon billions has life (as far as we know), and this life has existed for a fleeting period out of billions and billions of years, and you conclude that the universe was created for the purpose of that life. That ignores the majority of the prevailing evidence.

It does not, since the odds, this only earth to host life, was one to the 10^220 power. A inimaginable large number.

Scientists have been able to show how this process worked, but the prize is for actually doing it, which requires more time because it is a more thorough demonstration. But they're close to doing it too.

Not true.

http://www.us.net/life/

"The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s).

you just need to propose a highly plausible explanation. Thats all which is required.

Researchers have found a way that the genetic molecule RNA could have formed from chemicals present on the early earth. Other studies have supported the hypothesis that primitive cells containing molecules similar to RNA could assemble spontaneously, reproduce and evolve, giving rise to all life. Scientists are now aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the lab­oratory—essentially giving life a second start to understand how it could have started the first time.

See here.

these are baseless assertions, without a hint, how this could have happened by pure chance. Again, you show your credulity without at least examine in a more indepth manner, what these guys assert. Your bias is evident.

Whining that science has a bias will get you nowhere.

Actually, no. It explains a lot of things.....

That is not a substantive response, so it is irrelevant. I explained why magic explanations are inferior to naturalistic explanations, and you have no answer, apparently.

You have missed so far, to bring substantial arguments to the table, to back up your position.

Show that the universe occurring naturally is unlikely.

I've done so. Science has done so, and admitted it. Thats why it has proposed the multiverse theory, to have a alternative explanation to design. Why do you ignore the obvious ? I will soon see no more reason, to continue our debate, since you ignore the most obvious facts. That makes a reasonable discussion senseless.

You can't do it. You have no data from universe productions to work from. We only know of one universe, so you can't say how likely or unlikely they are.

your argument has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. you start to be quit irrational....

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... se-t31.htm

over 120 fine-tune constants are known. Here just two examples.

It is not that we cannot imagine another world in which intelligence or life might exist. It is rather that, in this world, any of a hundred small shifts this way or that would render everything blank. Astrophysicists John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk calculate that "small changes in the electric charge of the electron would block any kind of chemistry" ("The Structure of the Early Universe," Scientific American, April 1980: see also John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle). A fractional difference, and there would have been nothing. It would be so easy to miss, and there are no hits in the revised universes we can imagine: and yet this universe is a delicate, intricate hit.

"As far as finely tuning things, there are still two important fine tuning problem that are not solved. One is the problem that's called the cosmological constant problem. It's basically the problem of why the energy density of the vacuum is either zero or very close to being zero. Current models of physics require fine tuning in order to make the energy of the vacuum turn out to be either zero or very, very small."

Alan Guth, quoted by F. Heeren in "Show Me God", pg 387.

You can't show that any of your theological statements are true. So you have no case.

but i have a explanation. Thats enough.

If you think you can show that they are true, by all means attempt to do so.

no , i can't. You take it on faith, or you don't. Philosophical and religious questions cannot be proven.

You just saw evidence that some scientists think life was created by natural means on this planet, and they are trying to reproduce those conditions. So you are misleading readers if you try to pretend that scientists don't think life could have arisen by natural means on this planet.

Truth being said : there are some desperate atheist cretine scientists, which do not want to see the obvious. Abiogenesis is a lost case. Period.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?
This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

As I pointed out, there is one sense of "information" in which it requires a mind and an intelligence, and another sense in which it does not. You trade on these meanings and thus commit the fallacy of equivocation.

I don't know of any kind of information, which does not need a mind as origin.

I have yet to see any evidence at all from you regarding the existence of spirits, let alone evidence that spirits can create universes, planets, life, or anything else. You have not even come close to showing any of this.

that is because you are blinded by your bias. No God shall exist. At any cost.

Let me ask you : If the God of the bible would prove his existence to you beyond any doubt, would you start to worship him ?

[kwlyon]

So, are you done conversing with me? I can't help but notice you did not respond to ANY of my point nor pick a particular point you wished to discuss in greater detail. I'm offering you the input of a professional physicist here. If you are interested in understanding these theories, you should not pass the opportunity up:) The only point of yours I am going to once again respond to is this:

You seem to be under the impression that we have a solid idea of how "probable" this universe's existence is. We do not. Physicists have put forth MANY ideas attempting to grapple with the idea but the fact remains we simply do not have enough information to put any level of faith in such conjecture. Again, it is very POSSIBLE that this is the only universe that could exist. Any physicist worth his salt would agree with this assertion. They may not hold this to be probable, but certainly they would concede that it is possible, and that we lack sufficient understanding to asses probabilities. This is a fine topic to discuss, just let us be clear it is currently outside the realm of any scientific consensus.

Kevin

[Achsah]

I take issue with this assertion. It is impossible to count to infinity because that would take an infinite amount of time. In counting, you are starting from a finite point, and proceeding to move towards infinity at a finite rate. However, who said you must START at any particular point?

If you want to reach Today, you need to start at a particular point, otherwise, you will never reach today from infinite past time.

We exist at this point in space and time. If there is an infinite regress in time, this is where WE exist. There is no physical reason why, even if time were linear, it could not extend backwards and forwards into infinity.

hypothetically, not. In the real world, its not possible.

The other thing I find fascinating about this quote is Strobels failure to understand that science IS BY DEFINITION naturalistic! The pursuit of science is the pursuit of naturalistic explanation and understanding of the world around us. He doesn't seem to understand this...

and that is something, i put a big questionmark on it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philoso ... w-t335.htm

Science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed.

"Naturalistic science" points to naturalism, whether philosophical or methodological, both of which are essentially the same. Neither of which will allow the supernatural as a cause for anything in this world, even if logical. Natural causes must account for everything. So if scientific findings shows limits in natural causes, it doesn't matter because natural causes must have done everything. This shows that it is not the science that is important, but the reigning philosophy of naturalism. By definition, it will exclude any other possible explanation, whether presuppositional or logical or even rational, including the possibility of the supernatural, so it is true that naturalistic "science", or rather the naturalistic interpretation of scientific evidence will always miss a supernatural explanation. Whatever the supernatural is, the naturalistic mind will not accept it. That's why it is true that research today is not about finding real answers, but only confirming a naturalistic philosophy.

Again I don't see your point. This is not a response to MY point above...

the point is : if the universe is finite, and had a absolute beginning, and this hypotheses is supported by many scientists, then our universe had a cause. Thats all about.

Please explain to me how a statement of faith is different from an assertion...

a assertion holds that a argument is true. A statement of faith is a subjective, personal opinion.

Yes, it could have properties which would not permit life to arise...it does not. This is certainly what we would expect as we are here.

No. If chance would be the only mechanism to create our universe, we should expect not to be here, because of the odds to be so by chance.

Lee Smolin did not calculate those odds. He made them up. I have already explain this to you. It is impossible, given our current understanding of the universe, to asses odds regarding the values of the physical constants. Still, this is a moot point as, whatever the odds, here we are.

Then take the odds of any of the over 120 constants, and see..... You cannot say, these odds are made up, since they are widely accepted in the scientific community.

No, Strobel has DEMONSTRATED he does not understand basic scientific inquiry. And YES! The scientist he interviewed are specialist in THEIR fields I am sure...but they are NOT, with few exceptions, specialist in the fields of which they were interviewed! Interesting that he would not interview a cosmologist with regards to cosmology! My point is, the fact that you can sight tons of sources making random, baseless assertions does not constitute an argument any more than quoting fabricated statistics.

how about having a look at Barrow and Tiplers book of the anthropic principle. You'll be damn wrong, if you assert, they did not know, what they were writing about.....
I am intrigued, you argue against something, there is no doubt about in the scientific community. Our universe is finely tuned to life.

Gladly! Say, why don't you undertake a little experiment. Email a few of these scientist and ASK them if they agree with me:) I can't help but notice that MANY of them are, in fact atheist! Still, I must point out that this IS an appeal to authority.

Yes, it is appeal to authority , but they are specialists in their field, so that is a valid argument.

You are not presenting me with their arguments, but rather with an assertion that they accept the "fine tuning==god" argument. This is a horrifically fallacious argument and the fact that a handful of scientist are goober enough to accept it is little more than sad.

Nope. I just show you, that according to their research, the universe is finely tuned to life. How this came to be, is a entirely different business. Each of us can interprete this fact by its own, as it wishes. You can explain it by a designer, or a multiverse. Or say : i don't know how it came to be...... thats a rather standart answer, i hear from atheists, when they try to avoid a designer at any cost.

Um....no....sorry I won't concede that. What I will concede is that MANY of these scientist believe in a god who is responsible for the creation of the universe. Many of my associates are theist...but they don't buy the fine tuning garbage. And you need to look over your list. There are a few outspoken atheist here:)

at least you cannot claim, i just use apologetic sources. My sources are atheist scientists, which aknowledge, the universe is finely tuned to life. They might diverge how this came to be, but nevertheless, the argument stands. For me , the most reasonable answer is : The universe seems to be finely designed. So why exclude a designer ?

How can you assert this? There may be an infinite number of universes, or there may not. It is entirely possible that this is the only universe that could exist. I agree that why the universe is the way it is needs explanation--that is what we are up to! There is, however, nothing about this universe that is "unexpected" precisely because we don't know what we SHOULD expect based upon a single data point.

Actually, no !! We should expect a non life permitting universe, or no universe at all, based on the odds, such a universe to arise by mere natural probabilistic means.

If there is an expansive multiverse of which we are just one, and each has varying physical constants, the probability that we would find ourselves in one capable of supporting life of our kind is also identically 1. We sure as hell wouldn't have evolved in a universe incapable of supporting such life.

No evidence exist at all for god...again MY point remains quite solid. We just don't have enough information to go on at this point.

Sorry, no. I don't buy to it. Exactly because we KNOW today, how finely tuned our universe is, we have the information, the data on hand, to make predictions , and evaluations.

Invoking god is, for many reasons, far more of a stretch than invoking the idea of a multiverse. However both are possible. The former requires quite a bit of explanation itself. You don't seem willing to broach the question of "Where did this God come from?"

Beginning of the universe + finely tuned universe + appearance of life + DNA code + appearance of intelligent life + moral code + bible = evidence of God's existence
0 = evidence of a Multiverse.

see the difference ?

Yea, I don't really like the infinite universe theory. Not because it is in any way implausible, but rather because it is just so damn complicated. It makes for great stargage episodes however I don't think it will yield good science. It's just something to chat about over coffee.

how well, you aknowledge this. So what makes you still feel, God is not a plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe , if the only reasonable alternative falls apart ?

2) Is carbon chemistry the only viable option to support life? Is it even reasonable to assume that matter, space, energy, and time are the only components of reality that COULD exist. We are stepping beyond the realm of conjecture at this point. I really don't see how any of this in any way argues for the existence of a creator.
You just assert this:) I am not sure why I should accept this. But even if silicon is not a viable alternative, you seem to have missed MY point entirely. Read it again and give it another go.

We simply don't know about other possibilites. So why take these in consideration ?

Seeming designed and BEING designed are two rather different fish.

Sure, but that is what its all about. About probabilities. Absolute proofs, nobody has. So, the questions stands..... Why is the existence of a designer not the best answer, if the universe seems designed ? Why to assume , there is no designer, if the universe indicates the contrary ?

Be that as it may, there may well be a designer...however its existence will certainly only complicate the issue as we now must explain its existence.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-go ... od-t77.htm

In general, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained, and science would be destroyed. In the case of a cosmic Designer we can leave it an open question for future inquiry whether this being even has a designer and if so, who that designer might be.

Let me suggest something. Let's take this exchange on a point by point basis as I don't have time to respond on this order of magnitude and put much effort into my responses. If you really are here to learn WHY these arguments are untenable, then you deserve higher quality and that will, at least in my case, have to come at the sacrifice of quantity. Pick an item you want to discuss in greater detail from this exchange and I will address it.

how about starting with this question then , which i made to Doug : If God would prove himself to you without any doubt remaining, and it would be the God of the bible, would you wish to start , worshipping him ?

[kwlyon]

Which of these would you like to start with?

[Dardedar]

Achsah has a professional chemist, a philosopher, a physicist and a really good goat farmer standing by and willing to converse intelligently about these issues. All we ask is that he respond to questions and points directly and not hide behind dump truck loads of tired cut and paste material from 1980's creationist tracts. He seems to be going with the dump truck load method rather than use this opportunity to actually go into depth on some of the interesting issues that he clearly only has a very shallow and pedestrian understanding of. This is unfortunate. It's not a good strategy but if you were trying to defend the magical thesis of creation, you might understand where he is coming from. It's not easy.

Again, Achsah, hone your arguments down to a couple finer points. We'll respond to them in depth, as we already have. Show the capacity to learn and respond to stimuli. We've all been doing this a very long time in professional capacities, not at the "I just read this in a Lee Strobel book" level. You are not cutting and pasting anything we haven't seen over and over and over. All we ask is that you respond to questions and points directly and hone your arguments down to a few points at a time rather than a dump truck load of regurgitate you found on the google. This is not an unreasonable request.

D.

[kwlyon]

Achsah has a professional chemist, a philosopher, a physicist and a really good goat farmer standing by and willing to converse intelligently about these issues. All we ask is that he respond to questions and points directly and not hide behind dump truck loads of tired cut and paste material from 1980's creationist tracts.

This is exactly what I was trying to communicate. Thank you Darrel.

Achsah,

I don't want you to feel that you are "under attack" on this forum. However it has come across to me that you are not interested in learning but rather in flaming via "shotgun" rhetoric. A common creationist technique is just to over run people with mountains of assertions, all of which are easily addressed individually, however when released all at once, create confusion. I don't know that you are resorting to this technique intentionally. I have spent an great deal of time attempting to offer a quick yet reasonable response to the points you have raised. In response, almost without exception, you have sidestepped the point of my rebuttal in an apparent attempt to derail the conversation. For example:

No, Strobel has DEMONSTRATED he does not understand basic scientific inquiry. And YES! The scientist he interviewed are specialist in THEIR fields I am sure...but they are NOT, with few exceptions, specialist in the fields of which they were interviewed! Interesting that he would not interview a cosmologist with regards to cosmology! My point is, the fact that you can sight tons of sources making random, baseless assertions does not constitute an argument any more than quoting fabricated statistics.

how about having a look at Barrow and Tiplers book of the anthropic principle. You'll be damn wrong, if you assert, they did not know, what they were writing about.....
I am intrigued, you argue against something, there is no doubt about in the scientific community. Our universe is finely tuned to life.

Though I certainly take issue with your response on many levels, you do see, surely, how it in no way addresses my point to which you were responding. This has the appearance of Hovind-rhetoric. If we are free to simply change the subject rather than address a point of contention then we just go around in circles all day.

Now again, I am quite busy and am not up for a goose chase. However I am VERY interested in having a discussion on any of the points you raised above. Please pick a starting point and I will address it to the best of my ability. Every point of contention that you have raised above is easily addressed. I would suggest picking the one that most interest you.

Kevin

[Achsah]

Now again, I am quite busy and am not up for a goose chase. However I am VERY interested in having a discussion on any of the points you raised above. Please pick a starting point and I will address it to the best of my ability. Every point of contention that you have raised above is easily addressed. I would suggest picking the one that most interest you.

Kevin

lets stick to the fine-tune argument.

do you aknowledge, established science accepts the universe is finetuned to host life, or not ?

i think that would be a good point to start.

[kwlyon]

lets stick to the fine-tune argument.

do you aknowledge, established science accepts the universe is finetuned to host life, or not ?

i think that would be a good point to start.

Yes and no. I am very aware that, if the universe were much different than it is, WE would not exist. We evolved in this universe. It is not therefore surprising that we would find ourselves in an environment well suited to our existence. Be that as it may, I do not like the way you phrase this. The universe does not seem "fine tuned for life" as is evident by the apparent rarity of life. What I think you mean to say, is that the universe is quite nonconducive to life on the whole, but that life CAN exist here. More specifically, the physical constants of the universe are such that we can exist. I maintain that there may be MANY possible arrangements to said constants in which life of some type may exist. Also, who KNOWS what other realities might exist in which these constants are not even factors. This is why I have consistently maintained that we simply do not know enough about the universe we have woken up in to place much faith in such conjecture. I would like to point you to Darrel's Point up above which is very eloquently delivered.

Again, you can't show it is chance and you can't calculate the probability until you know the variables. As to improbability, it's quite easy to show, statistically, after the fact that your existence is far more improbable than any statistic you have provided yet. Stack as many "trillions" as you like. Yet, nonetheless, here you are. Amazing. What are the odds? Let's think about it.

The male body makes about 1,500 sperm a second (129 million a day). Each one is unique. To make little Achsah it took that one sperm meeting that one egg (of the hundreds of thousands of eggs your mum had). Let's say your dad had 30 fertile years. That's about 1,400 trillion sperm he made during that time. And we needed just that one, to get to just the right egg during your mom's 25 or so years of fertility. Perhaps our math mathematician can calculate the odds on this. It's going to involve a very high stack of "trillions."

But wait. That's just one single generation. Going back each generation the odds of your existence decrease exponentially. And we have the added variable of multiple mates needing to find each other at just the right time.

So do we say you don't exist because statistically it's nigh impossible? No, we say, here you are. And we ask you to stop engaging in silly statistical, after the fact games.

In hindsight, with no understanding of the underlying probability distributions, everything is INFINITELY improbable. So by your argument of fine tuning, nothing could ever exist or happen. Of course, however improbable the state, you have to be in SOME state! And this is the state we are in. It is a wonder to me that there is anything rather than nothing...however I don't see how this logically leads to the existence of a god. It seems to me the imposing a deity only serves to complicate the issue. I CONCEDE that a deity COULD exist. It is one possible scenario though it offers no explanatory power as it leaves us with a much greater puzzle to solve--where did the god come from? And there is no evidence leading us to this conclusion--it is just another possible layer of complexity. Certainly no MORE probable than any other scenario.

Kevin

P.S. I would like to invite Dar, Doug, (and Sav if he behaves himself) to interject any additional points they fell would be advantageous to this exchange. Just remember guys, every time LIGO looses lock we spend several thousand dollars trying to reestablish it.

*****UPDATE
P.P.S. Every once an a while I forget that I don't actually know who you are Sav, so I would like to clarify...I AM just giving you a friendly poke there:)

[Savonarola]

Achsah has a professional chemist, a philosopher, a physicist and a really good goat farmer standing by and willing to converse intelligently about these issues.

Right, and he hasn't addressed a single one of my points. In fact, he seems to be actively avoiding them.

Your idea, the universe had always existed , arise several issues.
First, the current,most accepted cientific model, the Big Bang Thery, stands over eighty years, and evidence, our universe had a absolute beginning, stands firmer and firmer.

Yes, our best science says that our universe as existing in the form in which we currently understand it had a definite beginning. Thus, it is foolish of you to pretend that either of us has said that the Big Bang theory states that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. In fact, I specifically said that this is not the case, but that the universe has existed for all time, meaning that the universe has never not existed. This not only follows from our understanding of the space-time continuum but answers the faux question of where the universe came from: it didn't. It never wasn't existent.

Secondly , if our universe were eternal, how do you deal with the second law of thermodynamics ? our universe would be today in a state of heath death.

Only if the universe had existed for an infinite amount of time. No scientific theory makes this claim. Mainstream science places the age of the universe at about 13.7 billion years. Why must you lie about science? Can't you present an argument that's honest?

If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

Get the car key out of your ear. The claim that "the universe has always existed" is not equivalent to "the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time" because time does not extend infinitely into the past. Time began when the universe did. How many times and ways to I have to say this before you stop lying about what science says?

I would suggest that you stop attacking proponents of theism, and just concentrate to debate the ideas.

I suggest you read the ideas for comprehension instead of finding keywords in our responses, then searching the internet and posting the apologetics you find here.

in my opinion, its a excellent book, which explains a series of issues in a manner, which is easy to understand for the layman.

But that's not always a good thing. Sometimes the reality is more complex than an answer that everyone can easily understand. Strobel is good at bullshitting his way into a god-based conclusion because it's easier than understanding the technicalities of reality.

I am in perfect agreement of main science, which suggests, the universe had a beginning.

But you are not in agreement with science when you say that the universe must have been nonexistent at some point in time.

I believe the entire universe was designed to host US.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

Its not a assertion. its a statement of faith. Thats different.

I agree with both of you. It is a statement of faith: a belief devoid of evidence -- in fact, contrary to evidence. It is also a ridiculous assertion. As you claim that it's faith, you acknowledge that you have no evidence for your position. You lose.

Lee Smolin has calculated the odds to one of 10^220. What makes you feel, chance is a good explanation, facing this kind of probability ? You seem very credulous.....

I am immeasurably skeptical of the calculation. I'm confident that he pulled numbers out his ass.

Oh, i see, its just guesswork then. You actualy just GUESS Strobel has no clue. That might be, but the scientists, he interviewed, are specialists in their field......
Beside this, i can cite you tons of sources, which make similar assertions. So, what is your point again ?

That anyone can make up numbers for a formula? Try searching for estimates that go into and come out of the Drake equation. Experts in their fields can make estimates, use the equation, and come out with radically different answers. This is because the estimates are guesswork. This is kwlyon's assertion: if kwlyon is extremely adept at statistics but cannot begin to make estimates with any confidence, there is no reason that Smolin could do so either. As an indicator that he knows what he's talking about, which applies to both the "origin of life" argument and the "fine tuning" argument:

In fact, the very attempt is actually a statistical fallacy as it is impossible to do any kind of statistics with a sample size of ONE!

Tell it to these scientists, which do not agree with you....

It is, of course, funny that a good number of these scientists don't agree with you. For example, Hawking is an atheist.

this is btw. not phallacy of authority, since these scientists are all specialists in their field. They know what they are talking about.

But my degree is in chemistry, and I teach the physical sciences, yet you won't even acknowledge that I've said anything to you.

There could be in fact a infinite number of different universes, non life permitting.

You haven't shown that this is true.

But a life permitting universe exists. This needs a explanation.

Only if it is special in that way. You haven't shown that this is true.

We sure as hell wouldn't have evolved in a universe incapable of supporting such life.

Yes, this is the only escape atheists have, to avoid this design argument.

No, it's not the only escape, but it's a powerful one nonetheless. From the chemistry standpoint, whatever replicating system that exists under whatever conditions has the potential to become life.

First of all, because its entirely unscientific. No evidence at all exists for such a multiverse.

Yet you keep arguing that several other universes (non-life permitting) could exist. I see you like to have your cake and eat it too. You can't have it both ways.

Istead a Multiverse, replace it with the pink Maccarroni Monster with Banana sauce as origin of the universe, and you have the same argument. Its simply not backed up by anything.

But if you replace "the pink macaroni monster with banana sauce" with "God," then we have your argument! And "it's simply not backed up by anything." Did you seriously not notice that?

Yes, silicon is not a viable alternative, as it has been proposed by some people.

Sources, please. Remember, I'm a chemist. Impress me.

even atheist scientists, like Dawkins, aknowledge the universe seems designed. So why should there then not be a designer ?

Because analysis done by people who understand the universe leads to the conclusion that a designer is not a necessary explanatory component. Apparently you aren't intelligent enough to understand that these people reject the god hypothesis based on evidence rather than accepting unquestioningly the knee-jerk design argument.

[Savonarola]

do you aknowledge, established science accepts the universe is finetuned to host life, or not ?

To use the old standby:

The universe is as fine-tuned to host life-as-we-know-it as a pothole is fine-tuned to hold a puddle-as-we-know-it. If the pothole were shaped differently, so would be the puddle. If the universal constants were different, then life would work with those constants (and probably not the ones we observe now) because it would have evolved under those conditions.

Perform a thought experiment: Suppose a constant or two began a very gradual shift. Those organisms that could still survive would do so, and perhaps some would die out. Continue this process until as many constants are as different as you choose. Any organism that then looked at their own inner workings and the constants of the universe could then conclude that their bodies are a perfect fit for the universe, so the universe must have been fine-tuned for them. Yet we, as the observers of this thought experiment, would know that their conclusion is faulty.

In other words, the universe isn't fine-tuned for life; life is fine-tuned for the universe, because this is where we evolved.

[Achsah]

In other words, the universe isn't fine-tuned for life; life is fine-tuned for the universe, because this is where we evolved.

I agree we should stick just to one issue. Since you say you are a chemist. Lets just give a closer look at abiogenesis. Please explain, if you think its a plausible hypotheses to explain the origin of life, and why.

[kwlyon]

In other words, the universe isn't fine-tuned for life; life is fine-tuned for the universe, because this is where we evolved.

This is an excellent and eloquently delivered argument. Thank you Sav. Once again you you have managed to express what I was trying to communicate in much clearer terms. I yield to you on the above question as it was directed at you...and you are the chemist.

[Savonarola]

lets stick to the fine-tune argument.

do you aknowledge, established science accepts the universe is finetuned to host life, or not ?

i think that would be a good point to start.

I agree we should stick just to one issue. Since you say you are a chemist. Lets just give a closer look at abiogenesis. Please explain, if you think its a plausible hypotheses to explain the origin of life, and why.

Apparently, you don't agree that we should stick to just one issue. Fine-tuning and abiogenesis are not the same issue.

Why are you so dishonest?

[Achsah]

Yes and no. I am very aware that, if the universe were much different than it is, WE would not exist. )

Not only WE would not exist, the universe itself would not exist, if the cosmological constant would have been finely tuned, as it was. I guess you agree, this constant is quit uncontroversial. Mainstream scientists, like Krauss, admit it.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... e-t191.htm

As Krauss himself points out, each of the two models left requires a high degree of fine tuning. A universe with a cosmological constant "involves a fine-tuning of over 120 orders of magnitude" while an open universe without a cosmological constant still "involves a fine-tuning of perhaps 60 orders of magnitude."11 In other words, if our universe has a cosmological constant, the value of that constant can vary no more than one part in 10120 (the number one with 120 zeros after it). If it has no cosmological constant, its expansion rate must be fined-tuned to within one part in 1060. For the sake of comparison, the best example of human fine tuning is the gravity wave detector currently under construction, fine tuned to one part in 1023. Human achievement takes on a new perspective in light of such numbers. For that matter, so does divine power.

how do you explain this degree of fine-tuning ?