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

[meltdown75]

:laugh:

i can haz reps?

 

[Arcadio]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

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.

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

Arcadio I will admit that you appear to be semi-intelligent. Unfortunately you don't look at all the facts, picking and choosing which facts to pay attention to and which to ignore because they don't fit with your beliefs about "God".

Imagine our universe as a grain of sand in a desert. Imagine that every other grain of sand is a different universe with one minute change. Maybe one gravity is the strongest of the 4 forces and everything is just one big hunk of matter. Maybe another Earth was never hit by the object that hit us and created the moon (provided that is actually what happened of course). In another atoms are made up of another sub-atomic particle in addition to protons, neutrons, and electrons. In another light is only a wave, and another light is only a particle. In yet another women have the boobs and penis, and men just have a vagina. In another your parents decided to have an abortion. In another you found the letter "h". In another Russia is the only remaining super power. In another we never broke free from Great Britan. I can go on like this forever, because the idea of the multiverse is that every possible outcome that could have ever happened, did happen in another universe.

You say "someone fine-tuned these values in our favor", but what proof is there of that? Based on the known laws that govern our universe, if the proton was .2% bigger the matter we know of and are made of couldn't exist. That absolutely does not mean that life couldn't exist, or that atoms couldn't exist. They could have taken a different form that worked. Our universe wasn't "fine-tuned" for us, we were "fine-tuned" by nature for our universe. We evolved based upon the laws that govern the universe.

Hell even in the Bible, it states that "God" created us in his image correct? Assuming that is a true statement, then that means we were created by "God" in this universe. The fact that we are in this universe means that either we evolved to form life obeying the laws of the universe, or we were created by "God" to obey the laws of this universe. Regardless of religious beliefs, we came to be in this universe based upon the laws of it. The universe wasn't crafted for us, we were crafted for it (either by nature through evolution, or "God" when we were created).

Valid response, but if the "multiple universes" theory cannot be tested, then why are scientists discussing it and not discussing Intelligent Design, which is also untestable. I think both theories should be equally discussed.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
"this", ie. this whole argument isn't semantics, i agree. i was using that term in reference to nakedfrog's post only.

Jeff7: i don't understand why people can't have this discussion without bringing religion into it.... right down to the church bells, lol. belief in ID does not constitute belief in God or any particular religion. people equate creationist beliefs to ID beliefs. i suppose it helps to pigeonhole the greatest amount of people that don't share your views though.

Intelligent design is almost always used so that Creationists can squeeze it into a scientific curriculum in school, without calling it "Creation." That's how it came about. We can't call it "Creation," so let's say it was designed. By something. Something intelligent. Infinitely intelligent. Godlike, even. But not God.

Originally posted by: Arcadio
Valid response, but if the "multiple universes" theory cannot be tested, then why are scientists discussing it and not discussing Intelligent Design, which is also untestable. I think both theories should be equally discussed.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally unprovable. Should His Almighty Noodliness be discussed right alongside ID and multiverse theory?

 

[Arcadio]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: meltdown75
"this", ie. this whole argument isn't semantics, i agree. i was using that term in reference to nakedfrog's post only.

Jeff7: i don't understand why people can't have this discussion without bringing religion into it.... right down to the church bells, lol. belief in ID does not constitute belief in God or any particular religion. people equate creationist beliefs to ID beliefs. i suppose it helps to pigeonhole the greatest amount of people that don't share your views though.

Intelligent design is almost always used so that Creationists can squeeze it into a scientific curriculum in school, without calling it "Creation." That's how it came about. We can't call it "Creation," so let's say it was designed. By something. Something intelligent. Infinitely intelligent. Godlike, even. But not God.

Originally posted by: Arcadio
Valid response, but if the "multiple universes" theory cannot be tested, then why are scientists discussing it and not discussing Intelligent Design, which is also untestable. I think both theories should be equally discussed.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally unprovable. Should His Almighty Noodliness be discussed right alongside ID and multiverse theory?

If you think ID is the same as Creationism, then you need to do some more research.

And speaking about the FSM, well, what I'm saying is that scientists shouldn't focus entirely on multiverse theory. They should accept the fact that there are other possibilities.

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: meltdown75
"this", ie. this whole argument isn't semantics, i agree. i was using that term in reference to nakedfrog's post only.

Jeff7: i don't understand why people can't have this discussion without bringing religion into it.... right down to the church bells, lol. belief in ID does not constitute belief in God or any particular religion. people equate creationist beliefs to ID beliefs. i suppose it helps to pigeonhole the greatest amount of people that don't share your views though.

Intelligent design is almost always used so that Creationists can squeeze it into a scientific curriculum in school, without calling it "Creation." That's how it came about. We can't call it "Creation," so let's say it was designed. By something. Something intelligent. Infinitely intelligent. Godlike, even. But not God.

It's too bad that people use the concept to forward other agendas, but of course they do, you are right. Unfortunately it detracts from a lot of valid discussion on the subject. In between all the flaming, I think a lot of good thoughts get squashed and some people probably don't speak simply out of fear.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: theplaidfad

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: theplaidfad
Arcadio, answer this trivia question correctly, and you will get REPS.

Who was the 9th president of the United States of America?

This Guy, but please keep the thread on topic.

I'm sorry, that website is blocked here.
Can you spell his name out for me?

William 'enry 'arrison. The ninth president. Please send reps this way.

I believe that's bannable mods. 'e did say 'e wouldn't forget the "h" anymore. Obviously that was a lie.

The h is a lie.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Valid response, but if the "multiple universes" theory cannot be tested, then why are scientists discussing it and not discussing Intelligent Design, which is also untestable. I think both theories should be equally discussed.

However, String Theory (which is based upon Math) provides more credibility to it then ID. Math allows for a multiverse, but no Math I have ever seen provides any credibility to the ID theory. In general the people that are into religion are pro-ID, but they can provide less proof for ID then the scientists who support the multiverse theories.

If you can provide me with some sort of scientific backing to ID (not a logic based argument, because the universe doesn't always follow the logical choice), I will be more than happy to give ID credibility. Multiverse theories provide more scientific evidence then ID ever has.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: meltdown75
"this", ie. this whole argument isn't semantics, i agree. i was using that term in reference to nakedfrog's post only.

Jeff7: i don't understand why people can't have this discussion without bringing religion into it.... right down to the church bells, lol. belief in ID does not constitute belief in God or any particular religion. people equate creationist beliefs to ID beliefs. i suppose it helps to pigeonhole the greatest amount of people that don't share your views though.

Intelligent design is almost always used so that Creationists can squeeze it into a scientific curriculum in school, without calling it "Creation." That's how it came about. We can't call it "Creation," so let's say it was designed. By something. Something intelligent. Infinitely intelligent. Godlike, even. But not God.

Originally posted by: Arcadio
Valid response, but if the "multiple universes" theory cannot be tested, then why are scientists discussing it and not discussing Intelligent Design, which is also untestable. I think both theories should be equally discussed.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally unprovable. Should His Almighty Noodliness be discussed right alongside ID and multiverse theory?

If you think ID is the same as Creationism, then you need to do some more research.

And speaking about the FSM, well, what I'm saying is that scientists shouldn't focus entirely on multiverse theory. They should accept the fact that there are other possibilities.

Until Math/Science provide some kind of evidence that show that the multiverse theory is wrong, or another theory scientifically works why should they? I don't think most scientists are closed minded and say that the multiverse theory is the end all be all of theories as to how we came to be.

 

[Leros]

I'm going to say that these constants were not fixed at the beginning of the universe, but came to be what they are through certain equilibrium. These constants do not define the universe, the universe defines these constants. Equilibrium keep these values within the proper range you are talking about.

 

[Arcadio]

Originally posted by: Leros
I'm going to see that these constants were not fixed at the beginning of the universe, but came to be what they are through certain equilibrium. These constants do not define the universe, the universe defines these constants. Equilibrium keep these values within the proper range you are talking about.

Good point, but that wouldn't really provide any explanation, since a follow up question could be "Why is such an 'Equilibrium' perfect for the development of life?"

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Leros
I'm going to see that these constants were not fixed at the beginning of the universe, but came to be what they are through certain equilibrium. These constants do not define the universe, the universe defines these constants. Equilibrium keep these values within the proper range you are talking about.

Good point, but that wouldn't really provide any explanation, since a follow up question could be "Why is such an 'Equilibrium' perfect for the development of life?"

You're thinking backwards again. The state of the universe is just how it is. Life came to be
and evolved within those conditions.

If these conditions were different, then life might have evolved completely differently someplace else. Or maybe not at all.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Arcadio
Valid response, but if the "multiple universes" theory cannot be tested, then why are scientists discussing it and not discussing Intelligent Design, which is also untestable. I think both theories should be equally discussed.

Scientists discuss "multiple universes" as a mathematical model, not as a proof to what really happened. It is one possible explanation on how the universe came about in just the right way for there to exist our type of life. It could have also come about by an all powerful being saying ?poof!? or a giant turtle pooping it out, but the conversation stops with either of those declaration, so it is more fruitful to discuss how statistical models show that it would come about if it was tried enough times. If nothing else it teaches you how to be a better poker player. We simply can never know what happened before the first few microseconds of the universe, and no one takes it seriously when they say they do know.

ID is not a mathematical model, has no method to predict, even as a thought exercise, how things might work, but is instead simply a declaration. God did it, which is the equivalent of scientists saying ?it just happened, okay?? There is nothing to discuss, because it is not a theory, it is a statement.

 

[JTsyo]

The multiverse came from the multiple possible answers the to string theory equations. From the point of science it doesn't really matter if the universe was made by God or not. What does that really change? It's still the goal of science to understand the universe. I don't see why some think of science as anti-relgion.

 

[meltdown75]

i can haz Grand Unifying Theory?

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
The multiverse came from the multiple possible answers the to string theory equations. From the point of science it doesn't really matter if the universe was made by God or not. What does that really change? It's still the goal of science to understand the universe. I don't see why some think of science as anti-relgion.

Most likely because religion has preached many things that have been disproven by science (helio-centric universe anybody?).

Granted they are not mutually exclusive, religion likes to infringe upon sciences space. It also like to lock people up for being heretics (well not so much anymore, but in years past).

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
It's too bad that people use the concept to forward other agendas, but of course they do, you are right. Unfortunately it detracts from a lot of valid discussion on the subject. In between all the flaming, I think a lot of good thoughts get squashed and some people probably don't speak simply out of fear.

So long as "intelligent" would refer to an alien race, similar to ours, then I would say that such a theory would be within the realm of possibility.

Who knows, maybe within 200 years, we'll have the ability to create simple biological viruses from scratch.
Upgrade it to the point where it can be self-replicating, and launch a bunch of virus-laden capsules at nearby star systems.
Some might eventually take over the planet, and in time, mutate into who-knows-what. One planet will be inhabited though, and see it as an attack with a WMD. They'll launch a pre-emptive strike against Earth, and continue the campaign until all WMDs (bacteria and viruses) are eliminated.

Thus humanity will be exterminated, all because of intelligent design.

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: JTsyo
The multiverse came from the multiple possible answers the to string theory equations. From the point of science it doesn't really matter if the universe was made by God or not. What does that really change? It's still the goal of science to understand the universe. I don't see why some think of science as anti-relgion.

Most likely because religion has preached many things that have been disproven by science (helio-centric universe anybody?).

Granted they are not mutually exclusive, religion likes to infringe upon sciences space. It also like to lock people up for being heretics (well not so much anymore, but in years past).

Bolded.
If your science goes against the religion, the observations must be wrong, or else Satan is fueling your work, and it's poisoning the minds of the populace. Options: Renounce work, repent, imprisonment, or death. Pick three.

 

[Turin39789]

Rossman = Arcadio?

 

[manowar821]

Fucking stupid.

If all the constants of nature were not exactly the same as they are now, life AS WE KNOW IT would not be able to exist. This is probably a fact. But that's not to say that life in a completely different form wouldn't appear.

Pointless argument is pointless.

 

[DangerAardvark]

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.

Everything. The aliens Dawkins refers to might appear god-like to us, but would not BE gods. If they were Gods, then they would be equally as improbable as God. His point is that alien intervention being responsible for seeding life on Earth is orders of magnitude more probable than "God did it" because we have a plausible naturalistic mechanism to explain their existence.

It's that simple. Naturalistic explanations will always be better than positing some supernatural force. And even the alien theory is much less likely than the primordial soup theory. Occam's razor tells us to not multiply entities beyond necessity. Giving God credit for creating life on Earth not only multiplies entities, but does it on the grandest scale imaginable. What could possibly be more complex than the God?

Long story short: aliens ARE more probable than God, but only because God is ludicrous in the first place.

 

[DangerAardvark]

My favorite response to the "fine tuning" argument: Why is the Universe trying to kill us?.

 

[Polish3d]

Listen OP, if God designed the universe, He could design it in any way He wanted and then design us to fit into whatever it looked like. Your argument is REALLY poor, I'm sorry, but it's junk.

It assumes the universe was designed around humans, which is senseless when you recognize that the universe likely had to exist before humans, not vice versa.

It also assumes that becuase something happened in a particular way, it was destined to happen in that way.

If God created everything in the universe, He also created logic, and logic says this argument fails like a motherfucker. Sorry

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
My favorite response to the "fine tuning" argument: Why is the Universe trying to kill us?.

It murders us all in the end.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
My favorite response to the "fine tuning" argument: Why is the Universe trying to kill us?.

:laugh:

Good stuff.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Arcadio

Originally posted by: Leros
I'm going to see that these constants were not fixed at the beginning of the universe, but came to be what they are through certain equilibrium. These constants do not define the universe, the universe defines these constants. Equilibrium keep these values within the proper range you are talking about.

Good point, but that wouldn't really provide any explanation, since a follow up question could be "Why is such an 'Equilibrium' perfect for the development of life?"

Why would you assume that? From what we have seen so far, most of the universe is cold and lifeless.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
My favorite response to the "fine tuning" argument: Why is the Universe trying to kill us?.

Hehe. His bit at the last 10 seconds was spot on hilarious.