So there are these "Constants of Nature" that make life possible in our universe...

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Lets see... 1 galaxy = a bjillion stars
a bjillion galaxies x a bjillion stars = 1 metric assload of stars
1 metric assload of stars = probably a good chance that one of them just so happens to be the right conditions for life... if not more

That is all.

No. You don't understand. There are certain values, called constants, which are fixed (duh). If those values were just a tiny percent lower, then life could not be possible anywhere in our universe. For example, if the size of a proton was just a tiny bit smaller, then life in our universe could not exist, since protons would be unstable, and atoms could not form. Therefore, life could not exist. So it looks like someone fine-tuned these values in our favor.

Useful Link

Someone fine-tuned them? I don't think so. First, "accepting" such bullshit would mean that we (as humans) are substituting hocus-pocus for physical explanations. If we'd done in that in the past, we wouldn't understand why it rains, what causes volcanic eruptions, etc, etc, etc. So you're basically asking us to abandon scientific endeavor and settle for the answer "God did it."

That never would have gotten us very far, and it certainly won't get us any further in understanding our universe.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Arcadio
No. You don't understand. There are certain values, called constants, which are fixed (duh). If those values were just a tiny percent lower, then life could not be possible anywhere in our universe. For example, if the size of a proton was just a tiny bit smaller, then life in our universe could not exist, since protons would be unstable, and atoms could not form. Therefore, life could not exist. So it looks like someone fine-tuned these values in our favor.

Useful Link

You're the one who doesn't understand

 

[meltdown75]

the only idiots in this argument are the people who think they know something one way or another.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: meltdown75
you should watch that ID documentary with Ben Stein, or maybe you just did. i forget the name of it. good watching though, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

i found it laugh-out-loud funny that Richard Dawkins, immediately after verifying all his views on the silly notion of a higher power / diety of any sort, gave a nod to the possibility that aliens started life on Earth.

:facepalm:

so after all that pontificating and championing of the atheist argument, it turns out his FSM is simply piloting a UFO. thanks for comin out, Dawkins.

I can't tell if you're being satirical or not, but if you are serious in that statement then you essentially prove Dawkins' point.

how? he refutes the possibility of anything traditional religions have suggested, then simply contradicts himself by affirming belief in same, but using different words. Dawkins believes in God, just by another name.

What you're defining as "god" and what Dawkins said aren't the same thing, though. You appear to be defining "god" as "whatever caused life to exist on Earth". Believing it's possible that extra-terrestrial life exists and started life on Earth isn't the same as believing there's some sort of entity that created the universe out of nothing on a whim.

so extra-terrestrials cannot be entities, or the other way around - what am I missing? i lost my galactic rulebook.

You're changing your language.

views on the silly notion of a higher power / diety of any sort, gave a nod to the possibility that aliens started life on Earth

Alients != deity or higher power. Simple as that.

Now you're saying entity. Entity != deity != higher power.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
the only idiots in this argument are the people who think they know something one way or another.

I agree. See logical positivism.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: meltdown75
you should watch that ID documentary with Ben Stein, or maybe you just did. i forget the name of it. good watching though, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

i found it laugh-out-loud funny that Richard Dawkins, immediately after verifying all his views on the silly notion of a higher power / diety of any sort, gave a nod to the possibility that aliens started life on Earth.

:facepalm:

so after all that pontificating and championing of the atheist argument, it turns out his FSM is simply piloting a UFO. thanks for comin out, Dawkins.

I can't tell if you're being satirical or not, but if you are serious in that statement then you essentially prove Dawkins' point.

how? he refutes the possibility of anything traditional religions have suggested, then simply contradicts himself by affirming belief in same, but using different words. Dawkins believes in God, just by another name.

What you're defining as "god" and what Dawkins said aren't the same thing, though. You appear to be defining "god" as "whatever caused life to exist on Earth". Believing it's possible that extra-terrestrial life exists and started life on Earth isn't the same as believing there's some sort of entity that created the universe out of nothing on a whim.

so extra-terrestrials cannot be entities, or the other way around - what am I missing? i lost my galactic rulebook.

You're changing your language.

views on the silly notion of a higher power / diety of any sort, gave a nod to the possibility that aliens started life on Earth

Alients != deity or higher power. Simple as that.

Now you're saying entity. Entity != deity != higher power.

nakedfrog started with the entity business.

you guys are saying aliens cannot be dieties or higher powers. i disagree. no one can possibly know these things, so no one is right. there is only opinion. slow your respected rolls.

 

[Kalmah]

I believe that anything is a possibility. Unless proven (ENTIRELY) to be false.

Until we have an answer, then all possibilities still remain open.
We don't have anything that can be deamed as factual evidence, so all we can do is speculate.
Speculation won't find the answer.

EOT

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: meltdown75
you should watch that ID documentary with Ben Stein, or maybe you just did. i forget the name of it. good watching though, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

i found it laugh-out-loud funny that Richard Dawkins, immediately after verifying all his views on the silly notion of a higher power / diety of any sort, gave a nod to the possibility that aliens started life on Earth.

:facepalm:

so after all that pontificating and championing of the atheist argument, it turns out his FSM is simply piloting a UFO. thanks for comin out, Dawkins.

I can't tell if you're being satirical or not, but if you are serious in that statement then you essentially prove Dawkins' point.

how? he refutes the possibility of anything traditional religions have suggested, then simply contradicts himself by affirming belief in same, but using different words. Dawkins believes in God, just by another name.

What you're defining as "god" and what Dawkins said aren't the same thing, though. You appear to be defining "god" as "whatever caused life to exist on Earth". Believing it's possible that extra-terrestrial life exists and started life on Earth isn't the same as believing there's some sort of entity that created the universe out of nothing on a whim.

so extra-terrestrials cannot be entities, or the other way around - what am I missing? i lost my galactic rulebook.

God created the universe, right? To a theist?
That's got nothing to do with whether or not some little green men made a pit stop on primordial Earth and took a dump in a puddle of ooze and kick-started the formation of life on earth.

 

[BeauJangles]

Arcadio,

if god created our universe, who created him?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
nakedfrog started with the entity business.

you guys are saying aliens cannot be dieties or higher powers. i disagree. no one can possibly know these things, so no one is right. there is only opinion. slow your respected rolls.

We're just saying you misunderstand Dawkins' statement in the movie.
Just sayin'

 

[Arcadio]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Lets see... 1 galaxy = a bjillion stars
a bjillion galaxies x a bjillion stars = 1 metric assload of stars
1 metric assload of stars = probably a good chance that one of them just so happens to be the right conditions for life... if not more

That is all.

No. You don't understand. There are certain values, called constants, which are fixed (duh). If those values were just a tiny percent lower, then life could not be possible anywhere in our universe. For example, if the size of a proton was just a tiny bit smaller, then life in our universe could not exist, since protons would be unstable, and atoms could not form. Therefore, life could not exist. So it looks like someone fine-tuned these values in our favor.

Useful Link

Someone fine-tuned them? I don't think so. First, "accepting" such bullshit would mean that we (as humans) are substituting hocus-pocus for physical explanations. If we'd done in that in the past, we wouldn't understand why it rains, what causes volcanic eruptions, etc, etc, etc. So you're basically asking us to abandon scientific endeavor and settle for the answer "God did it."

That never would have gotten us very far, and it certainly won't get us any further in understanding our universe.

Then why are scientists relying on "multiple universe" ideas? It is a fact that there are constants that are set to a specific value, and if those constants were just a little different, then life could not exist. That is a fact, I repeat. The question is "why did those constants take those values?" "Why couldn't they be different?"

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: meltdown75
you should watch that ID documentary with Ben Stein, or maybe you just did. i forget the name of it. good watching though, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

i found it laugh-out-loud funny that Richard Dawkins, immediately after verifying all his views on the silly notion of a higher power / diety of any sort, gave a nod to the possibility that aliens started life on Earth.

:facepalm:

so after all that pontificating and championing of the atheist argument, it turns out his FSM is simply piloting a UFO. thanks for comin out, Dawkins.

I can't tell if you're being satirical or not, but if you are serious in that statement then you essentially prove Dawkins' point.

how? he refutes the possibility of anything traditional religions have suggested, then simply contradicts himself by affirming belief in same, but using different words. Dawkins believes in God, just by another name.

Did he say he believes aliens started life on earth? I don't think so...

 

[Kalmah]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Lets see... 1 galaxy = a bjillion stars
a bjillion galaxies x a bjillion stars = 1 metric assload of stars
1 metric assload of stars = probably a good chance that one of them just so happens to be the right conditions for life... if not more

That is all.

No. You don't understand. There are certain values, called constants, which are fixed (duh). If those values were just a tiny percent lower, then life could not be possible anywhere in our universe. For example, if the size of a proton was just a tiny bit smaller, then life in our universe could not exist, since protons would be unstable, and atoms could not form. Therefore, life could not exist. So it looks like someone fine-tuned these values in our favor.

Useful Link

Someone fine-tuned them? I don't think so. First, "accepting" such bullshit would mean that we (as humans) are substituting hocus-pocus for physical explanations. If we'd done in that in the past, we wouldn't understand why it rains, what causes volcanic eruptions, etc, etc, etc. So you're basically asking us to abandon scientific endeavor and settle for the answer "God did it."

That never would have gotten us very far, and it certainly won't get us any further in understanding our universe.

Then why are scientists relying on "multiple universe" ideas? It is a fact that there are constants that are set to a specific value, and if those constants were just a little different, then life could not exist. That is a fact, I repeat. The question is "why did those constants take those values?" "Why couldn't they be different?"

If they where different, then maybe physics would be different as well.. still making life possible?

I'm just throwing stuff out here...

 

[Capt Caveman]

Scientists are smarter than Arcadio.

/thread

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: meltdown75

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: meltdown75
you should watch that ID documentary with Ben Stein, or maybe you just did. i forget the name of it. good watching though, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.

i found it laugh-out-loud funny that Richard Dawkins, immediately after verifying all his views on the silly notion of a higher power / diety of any sort, gave a nod to the possibility that aliens started life on Earth.

:facepalm:

so after all that pontificating and championing of the atheist argument, it turns out his FSM is simply piloting a UFO. thanks for comin out, Dawkins.

I can't tell if you're being satirical or not, but if you are serious in that statement then you essentially prove Dawkins' point.

how? he refutes the possibility of anything traditional religions have suggested, then simply contradicts himself by affirming belief in same, but using different words. Dawkins believes in God, just by another name.

What you're defining as "god" and what Dawkins said aren't the same thing, though. You appear to be defining "god" as "whatever caused life to exist on Earth". Believing it's possible that extra-terrestrial life exists and started life on Earth isn't the same as believing there's some sort of entity that created the universe out of nothing on a whim.

so extra-terrestrials cannot be entities, or the other way around - what am I missing? i lost my galactic rulebook.

God created the universe, right? To a theist?
That's got nothing to do with whether or not some little green men made a pit stop on primordial Earth and took a dump in a puddle of ooze and kick-started the formation of life on earth.

semantics.
if they did in fact take the dump and that's what started life, would they not be considered God? or would they have had to take dumps on ALL life-supporting planets to be considered God? maybe God is in the mothership, and the aliens that took a dump on Earth are simply angels.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Arcadio,

if god created our universe, who created him?

See Cosmological Argument, infinite regress.

I'm just going to parrot the standard responses to these arguments since almost all of the standard pro-god/anti-god arguments have really been discussed, in books and elsewhere, a thousand times.

 

[Throckmorton]

If it's true that protons wouldn't exist if they were 0.2% bigger... Then that's why they aren't 0.2% bigger.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Lets see... 1 galaxy = a bjillion stars
a bjillion galaxies x a bjillion stars = 1 metric assload of stars
1 metric assload of stars = probably a good chance that one of them just so happens to be the right conditions for life... if not more

That is all.

No. You don't understand. There are certain values, called constants, which are fixed (duh). If those values were just a tiny percent lower, then life could not be possible anywhere in our universe. For example, if the size of a proton was just a tiny bit smaller, then life in our universe could not exist, since protons would be unstable, and atoms could not form. Therefore, life could not exist. So it looks like someone fine-tuned these values in our favor.

Useful Link

Someone fine-tuned them? I don't think so. First, "accepting" such bullshit would mean that we (as humans) are substituting hocus-pocus for physical explanations. If we'd done in that in the past, we wouldn't understand why it rains, what causes volcanic eruptions, etc, etc, etc. So you're basically asking us to abandon scientific endeavor and settle for the answer "God did it."

That never would have gotten us very far, and it certainly won't get us any further in understanding our universe.

Then why are scientists relying on "multiple universe" ideas?

Scientists aren't relying on it. They're merely ideas used to do otherwise useful work, both in thought experiment and in actual.

It is a fact that there are constants that are set to a specific value, and if those constants were just a little different, then life could not exist. That is a fact, I repeat.

No, it's not a fact. See carbon chauvinism as an example.

The question is "why did those constants take those values?" "Why couldn't they be different?"

Again, please see anthropic principle rather than asking the same question a thousand times. Why can't people be more economical with their intellect?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Kalmah
Lets see... 1 galaxy = a bjillion stars
a bjillion galaxies x a bjillion stars = 1 metric assload of stars
1 metric assload of stars = probably a good chance that one of them just so happens to be the right conditions for life... if not more

That is all.

No. You don't understand. There are certain values, called constants, which are fixed (duh). If those values were just a tiny percent lower, then life could not be possible anywhere in our universe. For example, if the size of a proton was just a tiny bit smaller, then life in our universe could not exist, since protons would be unstable, and atoms could not form. Therefore, life could not exist. So it looks like someone fine-tuned these values in our favor.

Useful Link

Someone fine-tuned them? I don't think so. First, "accepting" such bullshit would mean that we (as humans) are substituting hocus-pocus for physical explanations. If we'd done in that in the past, we wouldn't understand why it rains, what causes volcanic eruptions, etc, etc, etc. So you're basically asking us to abandon scientific endeavor and settle for the answer "God did it."

That never would have gotten us very far, and it certainly won't get us any further in understanding our universe.

Then why are scientists relying on "multiple universe" ideas? It is a fact that there are constants that are set to a specific value, and if those constants were just a little different, then life could not exist. That is a fact, I repeat. The question is "why did those constants take those values?" "Why couldn't they be different?"

You're asking why scientists come up with new theories to explain things we don't know?
Do you know what science is?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
If it's true that protons wouldn't exist if they were 0.2% bigger... Then that's why they aren't 0.2% bigger.

Nicely stated tautology.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Everyone is smarter than Arcadio.

/thread

Fixed.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
how? he refutes the possibility of anything traditional religions have suggested, then simply contradicts himself by affirming belief in same, but using different words. Dawkins believes in God, just by another name.

"A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by human beings." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

"Extraterrestrial life is life originating outside of the Earth." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life

These 2 concepts are completely separate. Leaving the possibility that aliens created life on Earth does not coincide with the belief in a supernatural power. There isn't any spirituality in the aliens, no cause for faith or worship.

People worship an omnipotent being with the power to create the universe, they don't worship a superior alien species.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
semantics.
if they did in fact take the dump and that's what started life, would they not be considered God? or would they have had to take dumps on ALL life-supporting planets to be considered God? maybe God is in the mothership, and the aliens that took a dump on Earth are simply angels.

No, just because they started life on Earth would not mean they were god, because it doesn't mean they created the universe. The standard definition of "god" as I understand it, more or less, is "The deity what made the universe appear when there was no universe before, or anything at all, actually"

 

[Kalmah]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: meltdown75
how? he refutes the possibility of anything traditional religions have suggested, then simply contradicts himself by affirming belief in same, but using different words. Dawkins believes in God, just by another name.

"A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by human beings." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

"Extraterrestrial life is life originating outside of the Earth." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life

These 2 concepts are completely separate. Leaving the possibility that aliens created life on Earth does not coincide with the belief in a supernatural power. There isn't any spirituality in the aliens, no cause for faith or worship.

People worship an omnipotent being with the power to create the universe, they don't worship a superior alien species.

Thats all according to Humans though..

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Sweet, another chance to use the Douglas Adams puddle analogy!

"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' "

No. You don't understand. There are certain values, called constants, which are fixed (duh). If those values were just a tiny percent lower, then life could not be possible anywhere in our universe. For example, if the size of a proton was just a tiny bit smaller, then life in our universe could not exist, since protons would be unstable, and atoms could not form. Therefore, life could not exist. So it looks like someone fine-tuned these values in our favor.

Useful Link

*whoosh*

Sound of the metaphor going straight over Arcadio's head.


If those contents were a little different, life wouldn't have developed, and thus nothing would be around to question, "Why is the Universe so screwed up?"

There may well be a billion other little spacetime bubbles where matter could never form because of the screwy constants. Ours happens to work for matter as we know it, allowing the formation of life as we know it.

You've put the carriage ahead of the horse.

Speaking of which, carriage and horse:
"Wow, look at how this horse attaches so nicely to this carriage? Surely horses were designed to hook up to carriages!"

It don't work that way. Horse came first, carriage came later.
Constants came first, matter and life came later. No "design" was ever involved, nor was it ever even necessary.