Theism explains our existence better than Atheism ?

[Achsah]

hi all

i believe Theism explains best our existence, and i believe, the God that revealed himself in the bible, is the creator of all that exists. What are my reasons to believe so ?

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.
2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.
3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth. Science cannot explain it. There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ? Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.
Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual.
Even Einstein aknowledged this, for what is known as Einstein's Gulf :

http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible. Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

[Dardedar]

Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

DAR
Hello Achsah. You have a nice case of theism? That makes it sound like something you catch, like a cold. But seriously, glad you dropped by and numbered your arguments. We'll take a careful look at each one and perhaps we can discover together how they hold up to scrutiny. I hope you stick around and after we look at your first post carefully, you take the time to expand and make the case for your: moral argument, experience of miracles, and the testimony of the Bible. Don't get discouraged if your first post doesn't go so well.

Off to work,

Darrel

[Dardedar]

Before I go, let's just start at the beginning:

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

DAR
Can you show this? You have an assertion (premise) and a conclusion. Show that your conclusion must follow from your premise.

Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful.

DAR
Lot's and lots of assertions here. I don't know how you could begin to provide evidence for any of it.

That description fits best to the God of the bible.

DAR
As opposed to all of the other Gods right?

Okay, in just your number one you have shown you can make many assertions. Those are easy. Now comes the hard part. Let's see what reasons you have to believe beyond mere assertion. Let's see you support your claims in #1.

now off to work,

D.

[Doug]

Hello, Achsah. Thanks for stopping by and trying out your case for theism. Below is my response. Feel free to try to rebut my points.

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

Science rejects the notion that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Billions of particles come into being every second without a cause. Science didn't want to believe it, but scientists were dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion because of the weight of the evidence.

Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, incredibly powerful. That description fits best to the God of the bible.

It does not follow from the alleged fact that there was no time, space, or matter "beyond" the universe that therefore the cause of the universe must be like that which is beyond the universe. That's like saying that the cause of the Great Pyramids must not have been in Egypt because the pyramids are in Egypt. That's just fallacious reasoning.

It also does not follow from the alleged fact that there was no time, space, or matter "beyond" the universe that therefore the (alleged) cause of the universe must eternal, spaceless, incredibly powerful, invisible, or personal. None of that follows logically.

2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design.

The universe is finely tuned to permit life in one place that is less than one trillionth part of the whole universe, so you think the entire unverse was designed for life? 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.

If we judge a cause by its effect, the universe is almost all lifeless, so the universe must be designed to NOT have life, since that's mostly what it has: nonlife.

Chance is a very bad explanation.

Ghosts are a worse explanation. We have evidence that chance events happen. We have no evidence that ghosts can create anything, let alone that one could create a universe.

Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning.

We cannot calculate the odds because we don't know how many different ways universes can exist. For all we know, all the ways universes can possibly exist are life-permitting. We just don't know otherwise, so these numbers you're tossing around are meaningless.

It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design.

Again, if MOST of the universe does not have life, why do you assume that the tiny part of it that does have life is somehow the reason for the design of the whole? That makes no sense.

That's like going to a machine shop, seeing a machine that has produced 1 million 3/4" screws perfectly, and 1 screw that is an aberration, and you conclude that the machine was designed to produce that 1 screw that is different. That makes no sense.

If the universe is designed to produce life it is failing miserably because 99.999999999999% + of the universe does not have life. The "cause" must be a real bungler.

Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds.

And in another location we would see things better. In another we would be close enough to visit another solar system. In another location we would have more land to live on instead of a world that is 74% water on the surface. And so on. Your claims are ridiculous.

The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle.

This is absurd. Of course we live on a life-permitting planet--if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. So ANY creature that exists would ipso facto be in a place that permits life. You make it sound as if this is a coincidence, but of course it is not, by definition.

[rest of paragraph snipped]

3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth. Science cannot explain it.

Not so. Not only has it been explained, scientists have been able to recreate ancient conditions of Earth in a lab and show that life arose from natural processes.

But theism has never been able to explain life on Earth because it posits that magic is responsible, and by definition magic is not amenable to science or rational explanation. So it is your explanation that is lacking, not the scientific one.

There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ?

Life did not arise from rocks. (That sounds like an old Kent Hovind line.)
Also, life did not arise because it "needed" to do so. That's absurd. It just happened, but not out of necessity.

And it is your explanation that is subject to this problem: why would God need to create life? If he's perfect, he can't benefit by it. So life is superfluous, on theism. God has no needs, since he is perfect, so he had no need to create the universe. In fact, this is part of the reason that Aristotle thought that God was not the creator of the universe. Instead, he thought a minor deity, a "demiurge," created the universe. A perfect God by definition would have no reason to do so.

Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.

A standard creationist claim. But see the refutation here.

Even the simplest cell needs DNA , which is a information carrier. Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual.

You commit the fallacy of equivocation. Cells have no "information" in the sense of communication. Cells have chemicals, constituted by elements. A glass of water has 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom per molecule. But it does not have H's, 2's, or O's. Information is present when we give meaning to something, it is not something found in nature, except in a different sense of "information," as in the sense of clues, such as when a detective finds "information" at a crime scene, such as fingerprints. Information is created by a mind, yes, and DNA has NO information in this sense. It only has "information" in a different sense of the word. So there is no mystery here, just a fallacy committed by creationists.

[some info snipped]

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible.

Information is not abstracted by our senses. It is not "information" until AFTER we decide to use it as information. Thus there is no gulf to bridge. Compare: If I am walking through the woods just for fun, I may pass any number of tracks left by animals. That is not important to me, so this is not "information" for me. On the other hand, if I am tracking a bear, the tracks ARE information. These things become information by our use of them. We make it into information. We turn it into information, it is not just "information" out there apart from the way we use it. So there is no gulf. Information all takes place in the semantic realm of our language. We do it all. There is no mystery, no gulf that needs bridging.

Add to this the moral argument, experience of miracles, the testimony of the bible, and you have a nice case of theism.

The moral argument, the argument from miracles, and the argument from the Bible are all even WORSE than the case you have presented, which is old hat to many of us on this list. We've seen these arguments before, and we'll no doubt see them again. But they don't work.

[Dardedar]

I have just two footnotes to add to Doug's fine points.

The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle.

DOUG
This is absurd. Of course we live on a life-permitting planet--if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. So ANY creature that exists would ipso facto be in a place that permits life. You make it sound as if this is a coincidence, but of course it is not, by definition.

DAR
Achsah's claim is rather controversial anyway. It's known as the Rare Earth Hypothesis. See also the Goldilocks Planet. It seems earth could have been about 5 million miles closer to the Sun or about 5 million miles further away (or anywhere in between) and been habitable for us. If you want habitable for any life the distances can be greatly increased. How rare our type planet is depends on how many other solar systems there are in the mix. Considering there are more stars in the visible universe than there are grains of sand in all of the deserts and all of the beaches on earth, there may be actually billions if not hundreds of billions of planets in such habitable zones as ours. There goes Achsah's example.

3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth. Science cannot explain it.

DOUG
Not so. Not only has it been explained, scientists have been able to recreate ancient conditions of Earth in a lab and show that life arose from natural processes.

DAR
Here is a nice video for Achsah to watch. It shows that we indeed have very good, entirely naturalistic explanations describing how abiogenesis can work with no God's or miracles required.

Watch it here

D.
---------------------
ps. Achsah has posted the exact same comment here under the name "Angelo" and is getting a lot of feedback and interaction. We'll see if he tries to defend it here. Doug, perhaps you should post your rebuttal over there. I think it's of much better quality than what people are saying over there. Oh, I see they have ended that discussion over there.

[Savonarola]

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

Before Planck time, there is no reason to believe that there is a cause. All quantum events seem to have no cause.

Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter...[emphasis added]

I love pointing out the logical disconnect that always gets glossed over whenever this type of claim is made. The effort to justify the conclusion relies upon the idea of "before time" -- that is, "earlier in time than time existed." Nothing could be more nonsensical. In addition, time is a characteristic of the universe. Without the universe, there's no time. If there's no time, there can be no change.

2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design.

In addition to the many salient points that have already been made, consider extremophiles. These are organisms that live in extreme conditions, such as incredibly high temperatures in deep sea volcanic vents or in baths of sulfuric acid. To say that the earth is specially formulated for humans is simply countered by the fact that life exists in conditions under which humans stand no chance. The conclusion is that life will flourish under a wide variety of conditions, gutting the idea that either the earth itself or humans are special.

Chance is a very bad explanation.

Yes, chance is a very bad explanation if you ignore the other, non-random factors. Unlike you, I'm not dishonest enough to do that.

But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done.

1. That's like saying that you need six attempts to roll a three on a standard die. You might roll a three on the first try.
2. It's foolish to believe that there's just one possible life-permitting universe anyway.
3. The number cited comes from... nowhere. There is no meaning, no derivation for that number. If we get to just make up numbers, then here's one for you: You're 10^-500 times as informed on this matter as I am.

This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

And it's an incredibly feeble, impotent, misinformed argument. Hint, hint.

[kwlyon]

Darrel, Doug, and Sav,

Please try to refrain from flopping your peckers down on the table like that...you are making it extraordinarily difficult for LIGO to maintain lock...

[Achsah]

Can you show this? You have an assertion (premise) and a conclusion. Show that your conclusion must follow from your premise.

Have you ever seen things pop up out of nothing ? Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and cannot be the cause of something.

[kwlyon]

Can you show this? You have an assertion (premise) and a conclusion. Show that your conclusion must follow from your premise.

Have you ever seen things pop up out of nothing ? Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and cannot be the cause of something.

No, I have not seen things pop out of nothing. This is why I maintain that the universe has always existed.

[Dardedar]

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

Can you show this? You have an assertion (premise) and a conclusion. Show that your conclusion must follow from your premise.

ACH
Have you ever seen things pop up out of nothing ? Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and cannot be the cause of something.

DAR
So your argument is... if you or I haven't seen something happen before, then couldn't have ever happened and can't ever happen? And this applies to the entire universe and quantum mechanics too?

I don't find that very persuasive. Would you like to try again?

As for my opinion, I don't know where the universe came from, I don't know what did or did not exist, in any sense "before" the Big Bang. It's not clear it is or ever will be possible to know this. But then, I don't need to pretend to have these answers because I am not trying defend a God claim. I tend to agree with Kwylon that it may just be the case that what became the universe at the time may have existed in some other form "preceding" (wince) that. And it may all degrade to neutrinos and go to a big crunch, or something else, or not. You are not going to get a Jewish deity (theism) out of such uncertainties, but you may try.

D.
-------------------
"He is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is, equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was not." --Robert Ingersoll, knocking over your argument, about 150 years ago

[Savonarola]

Can you show this? You have an assertion (premise) and a conclusion. Show that your conclusion must follow from your premise.

Have you ever seen things pop up out of nothing ? Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and cannot be the cause of something.

No, I have not seen things pop out of nothing. This is why I maintain that the universe has always existed.

Exactly. By definition, the universe has existed for all time (though not for infinitely long). At no point in time was there no universe.

Keep in mind, Achsah, this is not a neat semantics trick designed to evade your question. This is the logical conclusion based on the nature of the universe. Now, I could accept the argument that because of our inability to understand time intervals less than a Planck time, our current understand may not be complete, but positing the maintenance of the principle of conservation of mass-energy is certainly no worse than postulating the existence of an additional causal factor. See Occam's razor.

[Doug]

Have you ever seen things pop up out of nothing ?

This was predicted in quantum physics, they looked for it, and they found it. Case closed.

Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and cannot be the cause of something.

Another common fundamentalist equivocation.

"Nothing" is not claimed to be the cause of anything. To say "nothing caused X" is not to say that "there is something called 'nothing' that caused X," but rather to say that "X was not caused by anything." Another way to say it: "X was not caused" or "X was uncaused."

Try to see beyond the sentence structure to the real meaning intended.

[Achsah]

Science rejects the notion that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Billions of particles come into being every second without a cause. Science didn't want to believe it, but scientists were dragged kicking and screaming to this conclusion because of the weight of the evidence.

virtual particles do not pop up out of absolutely nothing. That would be your alternative to a creator as cause of the universe.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... ns-t65.htm

from the book : a case of a creator

"These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs."However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum."So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question."

It does not follow from the alleged fact that there was no time, space, or matter "beyond" the universe that therefore the cause of the universe must be like that which is beyond the universe. That's like saying that the cause of the Great Pyramids must not have been in Egypt because the pyramids are in Egypt. That's just fallacious reasoning.

i didnt understand your pyramid comparison.

It also does not follow from the alleged fact that there was no time, space, or matter "beyond" the universe that therefore the (alleged) cause of the universe must eternal, spaceless, incredibly powerful, invisible, or personal. None of that follows logically.

why not ?

The universe is finely tuned to permit life in one place that is less than one trillionth part of the whole universe, so you think the entire unverse was designed for life?

I believe the entire universe was designed to host US.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... e-t249.htm

The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question 'why is our Universe so big?' The emergence of human life here on Earth has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.
The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn't have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it. The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it's a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
This may seem a regression to an ancient 'anthropocentric' perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus's revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn't take Copernican modesty (some-times called the 'principle of mediocrity') too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn't surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.


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.)

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.

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

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

If we judge a cause by its effect, the universe is almost all lifeless, so the universe must be designed to NOT have life, since that's mostly what it has: nonlife.

Non sequitur. If the purpose of the designer to make only one lifehosting planet, than it is what it is. It doesnt take away the design argument.

Ghosts are a worse explanation.

If you had to choose between a efficient cause, namely God, and a unefficient one, chance, why should the unefficient one be a better explanation ?

We cannot calculate the odds because we don't know how many different ways universes can exist. For all we know, all the ways universes can possibly exist are life-permitting. We just don't know otherwise, so these numbers you're tossing around are meaningless.

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.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... 91.htm#741

Why the Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history
If the universe had expanded a little faster, the matter would have sprayed out into space like fine mist from a water bottle - so fast that a gazillion particles of dust would speed into infinity and never even form a single star. If the universe had expanded just a little slower, the material would have dribbled out like big drops of water, then collapsed back where it came from by the force of gravity. A little too fast, and you get a meaningless spray of fine dust. A little too slow, and the whole universe collapses back into one big black hole. The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and too slow, the force, something that physicists call “the Dark Energy Term” had to be accurate to one part in ten with 120 zeros.
If you wrote this as a decimal, the number would look like this:
0.000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000001
In their paper “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant” two atheist scientists from Stanford University stated that the existence of this dark energy term would have required a miracle… “An unknown agent” intervened in cosmic history “for reasons of its own.”
Just for comparison, the best human engineering example is the Gravity Wave Telescope, which was built with a precision of 23 zeros. The Designer, the ‘external agent’ that caused our universe must possess an intellect, knowledge, creativity and power trillions and trillions of times greater than we humans have.
Absolutely amazing.

Again, if MOST of the universe does not have life, why do you assume that the tiny part of it that does have life is somehow the reason for the design of the whole? That makes no sense.

Newton said beautyfully in Mathematica Principia :

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.".1

it makes sense, it the creator plannet to be that way : that only one planet should host life. Everything indiacates, this was the case, if we study further how everything is set right to permit life on earth :

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-sys ... h-apr-2004

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... m-t180.htm

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water.

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.

THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

If the universe is designed to produce life it is failing miserably because 99.999999999999% + of the universe does not have life. The "cause" must be a real bungler.

As said, if the creator had the goal to make only one life supporting planet, your argument fails.

Not so. Not only has it been explained, scientists have been able to recreate ancient conditions of Earth in a lab and show that life arose from natural processes.

i ask myself, why they did not take the one million prize then....

http://lifeorigin.org/

"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).

But theism has never been able to explain life on Earth because it posits that magic is responsible, and by definition magic is not amenable to science or rational explanation. So it is your explanation that is lacking, not the scientific one.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philoso ... 5.htm#1189

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.

The atheist’s boast that his quest for truth is untainted by religious presuppositions is ultimately a farce. Atheism claims to be true as a result of an unbiased examinationof the facts of reality, but if truth be told, it is presuppositionally committed to faith in the naturalistic worldview.

It just happened, but not out of necessity.

that doesnt explain anything. Why after all, did it happen, if probability, it would not happen, is almost infinitely larger ?

And it is your explanation that is subject to this problem: why would God need to create life? If he's perfect, he can't benefit by it. So life is superfluous, on theism. God has no needs, since he is perfect, so he had no need to create the universe. In fact, this is part of the reason that Aristotle thought that God was not the creator of the universe. Instead, he thought a minor deity, a "demiurge," created the universe. A perfect God by definition would have no reason to do so.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philoso ... 5.htm#1092

The eternal purpose of God has been revealed

I. This was to create a society of souls that should form the body of Christ.

It was not an idea that came into His mind at a certain time; the Word of God, the Eternal Son of the Eternal Father, was and is that idea, He being the perfect image of God, the personification of all God's thoughts; so that, in Him from all eternity, all that has ever come to be was already present, not only in thought, but with the purpose of realization, the explanation and potency of all actual and future existence.

To bring into existence a society of souls is to give to those ideas a life of their own, in which, bonded together through personal fellowship in union with Christ, these souls should reflect the glory of God in such a way that they shall rejoice in the light and love of God with that same joy which is the very life of the Godhead.

It is a movement, therefore, to externalize the thoughts of God in a multitude of personal experiences. So great is the bliss of God, and so great is the love of God, that He would have others enjoy His existence and share His nature.

Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.

A standard creationist claim. But see the refutation here.

http://creationwiki.org/CB010

The odds of life forming by chance is so incredibly small as to be virtually Impossible. This is also why scientists have, in recent years, resorted to looking for life from outer space, and have speculated that life must have come to Earth from a meteorite or comet. But this only shifts the problem to a realm that is totally out of our reach, or to replicate (i.e. demonstrate) or prove, and is a matter of blind faith in the power of Nature to do what we have never before seen it do (or even come close to doing) on earth.
To give you some idea of the complexity of the most basic self- replicating bacterium, we first need to break it down into some of its "basic" (yet still incredibly complex) components. For example, all known living organisms are made up of, DNA, RNA, ribosomes, and MANY different types of proteins.
Proteins come in thousands of different types. They are, however, all made up of 21 basic amino acids. However, living organisms are only made up of the Left-Handed (or L-types of) amino acids, whereas experiments in the lab (such as that performed by Stanley Miller) produce both Left-Handed and Right-Handed amino acids. The most basic protein molecule consists of only 8 amino acids, yet it has never been observed to form naturally. The most simple bacterium known to man is the Mycoplasma. It consists of 40,000 protein molecules of 600 different types. It also has DNA (which it uses to make new protein molecules), and RNA (which copies the information from the DNA and then transfers that information to the ribosome (which is located in a different part of the cell)). Ribosomes read the information brought to them via the RNA molecule -- which got it from the DNA -- and use it to line up (Left-Handed Only) amino acids in their respectively correct order, in order to make all sorts of complex Protein molecules.
In other words there is NO WAY that a self-replicating organism such as a Mycoplasma (which is itself only a parasite, and requires a more complex "host" organism to survive) could have somehow made itself -- meaning that (according to the best of our knowledge) there MUST BE A CREATOR.

You commit the fallacy of equivocation. Cells have no "information" in the sense of communication. Cells have chemicals, constituted by elements. A glass of water has 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom per molecule. But it does not have H's, 2's, or O's. Information is present when we give meaning to something, it is not something found in nature, except in a different sense of "information," as in the sense of clues, such as when a detective finds "information" at a crime scene, such as fingerprints. Information is created by a mind, yes, and DNA has NO information in this sense. It only has "information" in a different sense of the word. So there is no mystery here, just a fallacy committed by creationists.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin- ... 8.htm#1009

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information,"

"Part of the work covered by the Nobel citation, that on the structure and replication of DNA, has been described by Wilkins in his Nobel Lecture this year... I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material - that of the genetic CODE - which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work..."

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medic ... n/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medic ... e/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.

Every organism has an almost identical system that is able to read the RNA, interpret the different codons and construct a protein with various combinations of the amino acids mentioned previously.


Information always comes from a mind.

[kwlyon]

virtual particles do not pop up out of absolutely nothing. That would be your alternative to a creator as cause of the universe.

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.

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.

*********Update: Here is a good criticism of strobel's rather dishonest "case for a creator" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... eator.html

i didnt understand your pyramid comparison.

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.

why not ?

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 believe the entire universe was designed to host US.

This is a ridiculous 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.

a very unlikely mistake to happen by chance, btw.

Again with the assertions. Lee Strobel, in what can only be described as the epitome of dishonesty, presents "statistics" regarding this probability. Allow me to lay bear my arrogance for just a moment after a short stent of modesty. I am a physicist, not a statistician, and only a mediocre physicist at that. However I am actually rather competent in statistics. One of my undergraduate degrees was in mathematics with an emphasis in statistics and analysis. I have NO idea how to go about calculating the probability of life originating in any of the possible universes that might exist. I have only an inkling as to how one MIGHT begin to calculate the probability of life existing in THIS universe--and at first glance it seems the odds are actually in favor of life. 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! 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.

ee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220

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. 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.

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.

I would also like to point out that this statistic is absolutely just made up off the top of his head. Assuming there isn't some bound put on these constants, and I can't see why there would be, they could take on ANY value between 0 to infinity. Thus, if we arbitrarily choose a uniform probability function for these physical constants (and if he is free to arbitrarily choose, so am I) we find that the probability of these constants falling within a range where carbon chemistry is possible is INFINITESIMAL--or in other words ZERO! One could just as easily invoke a probability distributions in which it is HIGHLY likely that the universe we know and love would be chosen. The issue here is we are, once again, working with baseless conjecture. He just made these statistics up off the top of his head. There is NO derivation based upon ANY physical reasoning that will lead you to these results.

Non sequitur. If the purpose of the designer to make only one lifehosting planet, than it is what it is. It doesnt take away the design argument

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.

If you had to choose between a efficient cause, namely God, and a unefficient one, chance, why should the unefficient one be a better explanation ?

I thought you just got finished explaining how INEFFICIENT god was? At any rate, to invoke a god into this certainly does noting but complicate the issue. How do we explain the existence of this deity? Presumably he came about via darwinian means in some previous incarnation of the universe yet somehow thrown through time via a stargate accident perhaps? Yet without any evidence for his existence, why bother postulating him at all? It simply doesn't offer any explanatory power.

I have work to do...I will get back to this later if It is not sufficiently addressed by someone else. If anyone else needs the input of a physicist to respond to any of this garbage I will be glad to provide it. However you really shouldn't as there is actually nothing to ANY of this beyond random conjecture, fabricated statistics, and just plain poor logic. Doug is actually more the logical fallacy expert...I yield to him as there is very little science here to address.

********************************
Update: too sleepy for programming:)
********************************

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.

Um...well, it is not near as small as you might be suggesting. Life similar to us could have easily evolved on mars and it is substantially smaller. Honestly I don't see why life of some kind, possibly even intelligent, couldn't have evolved on Europa. So long as you are tied to the planet securely, can have some form of "atmosphere" even if aquatic, and are not crushed by EXTREME mass, gravity is rather a non-issue.

[Savonarola]

ee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220

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. 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.

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.

kwlyon's objections are entirely valid yet superfluous to a very simple refutation of these types of claims:

Whatever the wording of the claim, it generally means this: "The probability of life as we know it existing in the universe absent divine intervention is [insert very small number]," or "The probability of having universal physical constants that allow for life as we know it is [insert very small number]."

Well duh. The problem is with the implication of life "as we know it." We have no idea what the outer bounds of "life-type" are, what differently operating self-reproducing systems are possible. If the physical workings of the universe were different, then so would be the life therein. If constants were different, then we wouldn't be here to ask the questions... rather, someone else would. And you know what they could say? "Whoa, isn't it awesome that the universe is set up just right for us to live here?!" This is the real anthropic principle: not that we're here because we can be, but that we can be here because we are.
The probability of life evolving in any situation can't possibly be infinitesimally small. As soon as any sort of cyclical chemical reaction starts taking place, we're off to the races.

Additionally, for any set of universal constants that prevent any semblance of stability, that universe would not exist. It is therefore foolish to pretend that the constants could have been just anything, unless you can show that random constants consistently produce universes that can exist long enough to determine that they can't possibly support life. (It means nothing to say that life can't evolve in a universe that expands and collapses back in upon itself in 4.1 seconds.)

So long as you are tied to the planet securely, can have some form of "atmosphere" even if aquatic, and are not crushed by EXTREME mass, gravity is rather a non-issue.

I agree that gravity is a non-issue, but I think that your wording opens the door to misunderstanding. I'm more of a biochemist than physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong with my implication: Why couldn't life evolve within an extreme gravity field? Just because a transplant from a weaker field would probably be crushed doesn't mean that a reproducing system (remember, of whatever type -- it doesn't have to be a type that we've seen) that developed entirely within that field wouldn't function while within that field.

[kwlyon]

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water.

Absolutely FALSE! Water is all over the place. It is the second most abundant molecule in the UNIVERSE! There is even water in the craters of the MOON! Water is found on EVERY planet in our solar system in plentiful supply. Liquid water is quite a bit more rare but that is not to say it is hard to come by. Europa is most probably rather moist under its frozen surface. And it seems as though liquid water has been flowing on Mars in the last few years.

Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.

We utilize oxygen for our metabolism. To many creatures, oxygen is quite toxic. It is actually a rather nifty evolutionary triumph that we have found a way to survive on this rather volatile gas. Early life on this planet almost certainly did not utilize oxygen for energy. MANY organisms today are likewise anaerobic. There is PLENTY of evidence that our particular atmospheric composition is not the only possible composition that could support life--even life similar to that on earth. Your last line is just another baseless assertion. How do you know that no other planet comes close to your atmospheric makeup? I'm guessing the same way Joseph Smith knew that the native americans were descended from a lost tribe of Israel. Again, this is a BOLD assertion as it will undoubtably be shown to be false in due time--if it hasn't already.

The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.

Oxygen is ABSOLUTELY NOT necessary to support life. This assertion is just patently false. As for your "rare earth minerals"....I don't see a point here....There is no reason to believe they are not just prevalent throughout the rest of the universe as they are here locally.

Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.

"Our sun is an average star in both composition and size" EXACTOMONDO! I, um, once again don't see your point here. It almost seems as though you have taken up arguing my position for me. I am grateful, but it is not necessary.

To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.

It turns out that distance, for our extraordinarily average star, is about the distance to earth +/- around 30%. This extends almost out as far as mars. It is also important to note that this region does not stay fixed throughout the life of the star. In time the habitable zone will move beyond earth just as it has not always encompassed earth. Thus there really is nothing "improbable" about an earth-like planet existing in any given system. There are, undoubtably, literally "billions" of earth-like planets in our galaxy alone (quotes given as pulled that number out of my ass...here billions=assload).

Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.

Again, who's side are you on anyway? It seems you have taken up my argument again. I see no point of contention here.

We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.

Again, you are basically arguing that we live in the region of the galaxy that is most conducive to the evolution of life....and thus this is where we evolved. It would seem that evidence for divine intervention would be an IMPROBABLE placement of life....I really don't understand your argument here.

Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.

An Ozone layer is not necessary for the formation of life on a planet, and almost certainly did not exist on this planet during the early formation of life. But again, I don't see your point.

Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.

I honestly don't know if this is true or not, however given your propensity to rely on sources such as Strobel, I certainly find it dubious. Be that as it may, I still don't see a point here. If I am to take this claim at face value, once again, you are arguing that life evolved in a place most conducive to its evolution--where it was most probable. How is this evidence for divine intervention?

We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.

First of all, the magnetic field only protects us from solar winds. Electromagnetic radiation is not in anyway perturbed by the earths magnetic field. I also see no reason why life could not exist on a planet without a magnetic field. Be that as it may, once again, you are arguing that the fact that life evolved on one of the perhaps billions of planets with magnetic fields comparable to ours, a planet where life is most likely to evolve, is somehow evidence for divine intervention. Seems like you should be looking for life evolving in an IMPROBABLE place....

Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.

Most planets have seasons. The fact that ours yields an environment where life is likely to evolve is, if anything, counter evidence for the necessity of divine intervention.

We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

"We have the tides that are very important for some species," Sure...as they evolved in a tidal environment....but again what is your point. Tides are not important to LIFE in general...just life that has evolved some trait which takes advantage of this environmental attribute.

"No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history" Again a random, baseless assertion that is almost certainly false. I am sure COUNTLESS planets have undergone almost identical events. Be that as it almost certainly is, however, I don't know anyone who would assert that the moon was a necessary factor for the development of life on this planet.

[kwlyon]

So long as you are tied to the planet securely, can have some form of "atmosphere" even if aquatic, and are not crushed by EXTREME mass, gravity is rather a non-issue.

I agree that gravity is a non-issue, but I think that your wording opens the door to misunderstanding. I'm more of a biochemist than physicist, so correct me if I'm wrong with my implication: Why couldn't life evolve within an extreme gravity field? Just because a transplant from a weaker field would probably be crushed doesn't mean that a reproducing system (remember, of whatever type -- it doesn't have to be a type that we've seen) that developed entirely within that field wouldn't function while within that field.

Yes, I agree, this was cumbersomely worded. But it is late, and I am only typing on here as I am too sleepy for research. This honestly doesn't take too much brain power. There is absolutely NO reason to believe that life could not exist in an extreme gravitational field up to the point that it becomes significant in chemical processes...which would be far more extreme than would be encountered on any planet. Life LIKE US could not evolve... obviously. But LIFE...I see no issue with this.

[Dardedar]

1. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

DAR
Why isn't it the case that your "creator" had a beginning and therefore a cause? Why do you make a special exception for him, rather than the universe? Unlike your creator we actually have good reason to think a universe exists.

ACH
Have you ever seen things pop up out of nothing?

DAR
No, but science confirms all sorts of strange phenomenon and things that you and I haven't "ever seen" such as electrons, radiation and electronic communication etc.

ACHSAH
Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and cannot be the cause of something.

DAR
You are playing semantic games as Doug has already shown.

Again, your number one claim is: "The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause." Show this is anything other than a non-sequitur. Show you have something beyond a "golly gee" argument from common experience.

You seem to be under the illusion that quantity is more important than quality. I assure you it is the other way around. You give piles of crappy arguments that we have all heard before but it's not the quantity that matters but rather the quality. Let's see you defend your best stuff rather than cutting and pasting mountains of effluent you can't even being to defend. What I am saying is, hone your arguments for quality rather than quality. We've all been doing this a long time and you don't have any new tricks. Try sticking to assertions you understand and are best capable of defending.

D.

[Doug]

virtual particles do not pop up out of absolutely nothing. That would be your alternative to a creator as cause of the universe.

I don't need an "alternative" to a creator. To knock down your argument, all I need to show is that you have not made a case, and I have shown that.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astrono ... ns-t65.htm

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.

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.

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.

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

[cut and pasted part snipped]

It does not follow from the alleged fact that there was no time, space, or matter "beyond" the universe that therefore the cause of the universe must be like that which is beyond the universe. That's like saying that the cause of the Great Pyramids must not have been in Egypt because the pyramids are in Egypt. That's just fallacious reasoning.

i didnt understand your pyramid comparison.

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.

It also does not follow from the alleged fact that there was no time, space, or matter "beyond" the universe that therefore the (alleged) cause of the universe must eternal, spaceless, incredibly powerful, invisible, or personal. None of that follows logically.

why not ?

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

The universe is finely tuned to permit life in one place that is less than one trillionth part of the whole universe, so you think the entire unverse was designed for life?

I believe the entire universe was designed to host US.

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.

[cut and pasted material snipped]

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? 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.

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

Right, so he doesn't believe that the universe appeared randomly. 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.
(Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos, pp. 101-102.)

That hypothesis sure beats the ghost-with-magic hypothesis you want to push.

If we judge a cause by its effect, the universe is almost all lifeless, so the universe must be designed to NOT have life, since that's mostly what it has: nonlife.

Non sequitur. If the purpose of the designer to make only one lifehosting planet, than it is what it is. It doesnt take away the design argument.

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.

You have NO evidence that the universe was designed to produce one lifehosting planet, so your claim is unsupported and totally ad hoc. If there were two lifehosting planets, you would claim that it was designed to support two, or three, etc., showing that your position is ad hoc.

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

[Doug]

Ghosts are a worse explanation.

If you had to choose between a efficient cause, namely God, and a unefficient one, chance, why should the unefficient one be a better explanation ?

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.

Again, 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.

We cannot calculate the odds because we don't know how many different ways universes can exist. For all we know, all the ways universes can possibly exist are life-permitting. We just don't know otherwise, so these numbers you're tossing around are meaningless.

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.

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.

[cut and pasted mere assertions snipped]

Again, if MOST of the universe does not have life, why do you assume that the tiny part of it that does have life is somehow the reason for the design of the whole? That makes no sense.

Newton said beautyfully in Mathematica Principia :

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.".1

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.

[cut and pasted material snipped]

If the universe is designed to produce life it is failing miserably because 99.999999999999% + of the universe does not have life. The "cause" must be a real bungler.

As said, if the creator had the goal to make only one life supporting planet, your argument fails.

OK, but you have done NOTHING to show that there is a creator, or that this creator had the goal of making only one life-supporting planet. So you are still committing the fallacy of selective evidence.

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.

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.

Not so. Not only has it been explained, scientists have been able to recreate ancient conditions of Earth in a lab and show that life arose from natural processes.

i ask myself, why they did not take the one million prize then....

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.

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.

But theism has never been able to explain life on Earth because it posits that magic is responsible, and by definition magic is not amenable to science or rational explanation. So it is your explanation that is lacking, not the scientific one.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philoso ... 5.htm#1189

Whining that science has a bias will get you nowhere. 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.

It just happened, but not out of necessity.

that doesnt explain anything. Why after all, did it happen, if probability, it would not happen, is almost infinitely larger ?

Show that the universe occurring naturally is unlikely. 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.

And it is your explanation that is subject to this problem: why would God need to create life? If he's perfect, he can't benefit by it. So life is superfluous, on theism. God has no needs, since he is perfect, so he had no need to create the universe. In fact, this is part of the reason that Aristotle thought that God was not the creator of the universe. Instead, he thought a minor deity, a "demiurge," created the universe. A perfect God by definition would have no reason to do so.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philoso ... 5.htm#1092

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

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

Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living cell is irreducible complex. All parts must be on place, making a gradual evolution not possible.

A standard creationist claim. But see the refutation here.

The odds of life forming by chance is so incredibly small as to be virtually Impossible. This is also why scientists have, in recent years, resorted to looking for life from outer space, and have speculated that life must have come to Earth from a meteorite or comet.

Remainder snipped.

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.

You commit the fallacy of equivocation. Cells have no "information" in the sense of communication. Cells have chemicals, constituted by elements. A glass of water has 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom per molecule. But it does not have H's, 2's, or O's. Information is present when we give meaning to something, it is not something found in nature, except in a different sense of "information," as in the sense of clues, such as when a detective finds "information" at a crime scene, such as fingerprints. Information is created by a mind, yes, and DNA has NO information in this sense. It only has "information" in a different sense of the word. So there is no mystery here, just a fallacy committed by creationists.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin- ... 8.htm#1009

Francis Crick received the Nobel prize for discovering DNA. The following is from the first paragraph of Francis Crick's Nobel lecture on October 11, 1962. Note his use of the word "code" and "information,"

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 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.

ALL your arguments are so far just of the form:

1. Phenomenon X seems unlikely to occur by natural means.
2. There are supernatural means that can explain phenomenon X.
3. Therefore, supernatural means are a better explanation of phenomenon X than natural means.
4. Therefore, we should believe that phenomenon X occurred through supernatural means.

The problem is, you haven't shown that #1 is true, but, even worse, it is impossible for you to show that #2 is true, let alone #3. So you can't support #4. Hence you have no case.