Mojo_PeiPei

I've been reading this book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. In it he discusses the notion of putting God back in the universe. Now this isn't a post of a christian or any other religious nature, its secular, a thought about a higher power.

So basically he points out a few things. To have life in the Universe (here on earth or else where) you need many small minute coincidences. If we changed some of the constants of chemistry and physics, such as nucleosynthesis and the creation of heavy elements, therefore eleminating the possibility of Supernovae, we here on earth wouldn't exist. To expand on that we need heavy elements for the creation of DNA and protein molecules.

Next he talks about the evolution of life from the oceans. He states that probably took somewhere around 1 to 2 billion years. But if for some reason the proton's life span were shortened to that of several million years, life would not be possible because it would take to long to create life out of the collisons of molecules. Taking an argument of time in a different direction. If the big bang/big crunch were timed in a way that it happened to fast, life wouldn't be able to exist because of the evolutionary clock it runs on.

He points out that in reference to the earth directly one could make the arguemet for the anthropic thought. If earth was any closer to the sun it would be too hot to support life, if it were any further away it would be to cold.

I'm not trying to sway people, just point something out. Everything about us, about the universe is extremely complex. And as stated earlier one could construe these as merely coincedinces(sp), but when does it become that perhaps, in light of so many coincedinces(sp), that perhaps there was a bigger plan. The thing to this idea is that it can't be scientifically proven or tested, and I know for many here that is an issue.

Also if someone would be willing to disprove to me the unseen mover idea. Basically if you trace back everything to the big bang and the swirling clouds of space dust. How did that space dust get there. And I'm not trying to be rude but answers like "they were left over from a previous big bang/crunch" or "They just were" doesn't really disprove anything as it really doesn't address the question.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

goateebird

But you could also ask the same question of a higher being: How did it get there? And the higher being would be no more exempt than a universe from those rules that you stated.

Or what if the Big Bang came out of chaos? Because chaos has no dimensions, there is no passage of time, and so there was no "beginning" for it to be formed out of.

Those are just some of my thoughts, feel free to comment.

Mojo_PeiPei

Thats fair enough. But I was talking more in the realms of science, because people often refute God on scientific evidence or the lack thereof. I don't know if Choas would apply.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

wilbjammin

Given that there are unlimited possibilities, the chances of things working out in our Universe like they have here can still be a coincidence if looked upon in the scope of this merely being one Universe in an infinite number of "Universes" (I guess the term would be multiverses?) that allows for human life, and so forth.

__________________
Innominate.

Mojo_PeiPei

Yeah, thats a fair point, but you would have to consider those other universes being dead universes because most likely thir scientific constants vary.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

wilbjammin

Yep, good thing the atoms that I'm composed of don't exist there.

__________________
Innominate.

chavos

say you flip five coins, and if you don't get all heads, someone shoots you in the head before you can even see the results. if you by some slim chance survive, you might marvel at the long odds you faced...becuase winning is the only chance you have to think about the situation.

if we had "lost" the big bang lotto, we wouldn't be here to contemplate the long odds. so...our very observation of the problem means that we are either very lucky, or there was something changing the odds. but that we "won" doesn't indicate either.

goateebird

Yeah, I'm not sure you can really use scientific evidence to disprove God's existence. If you could, word of it would undoubtedly spread, and there would probably be very few believers left. Vice versa goes for if science proved that God does exist.

As for that book, and its talk of coincedences leading to life, I dunno, because pretty much every resulting product comes about because of coincedences. Where I am right now results from the coincedences of my parents going to the same school, that this particular house was up for sale, that this awesome chair was on sale when I went to the store. And each of those individually are also coincedences, and you can examine each step of the path and they're all the result of coincedences. Interesting that they play such a big role though.

wilbjammin

It just goes to the show the absurdity of our existence. Why do we exist in the face of extreme odds?

Additionally, I've met someone that was shot in the head and lived a normal life. You would have never known he was ever shot if you saw him on the street. I think that's a sort of good allegory for life.

Take from that what you will.

__________________
Innominate.

:::OshnSoul:::

I just said something to that affect to my husband the other night.
There can be many "Universes" yet, seem all as One- the One we all know of. But the many or multi-universes are really different planes of reality and dimensions. Yet, Earth in this universe is most suitable and created just for the physical life of humans and their surroundings.

If we can't see our Truth in the physical world, we WILL know it once we pass on to the other side. Everything will come back to us. ALL answers within are revealed.

Think of defining God as an Essence just "being"- not an acutal "being" but that the Essence is just "being". And as it created "the heavens and the earth" energy vibrated at such a magnitude that it all immediately exploded into what we know as the Universe. Energy- we all know that everything is made up of it. The Essence of "God"=Energy? Hmmmmmm..........Anything is possible!

CSflim

The earth is the perfect temperature for life. It has the right mixture of atmospheric gasses. It has liquid water.

What an amazing coincidence! What is the probability of all of these factors being just as they are!? Pretty small I'll bet. Imagine, that all of these things are set just right on the same planet that we just so happen to have evolved on. If these factors had been different, earth would be a lifeless rock.

Surely this has to mean something? Surely we can deduce from this that earth was chosen consciously by someone/something? (God? Aliens?). Of course not! We simply have to realise that had the conditions on the earth been any different, then we wouldn't be here on earth to notice! When you realise the vastness of space, you realise that it is in fact quite probable that at least one planet would have met the necessary conditions for life.

We can apply the same argument to the claim that the constants of nature suggest an intelligent "fine-tuning".
First of all, we have to ask if these "constants" really are constant. There is at least some tentative evidence to suggest that these values actually vary from place to place and from time to time. (See The Constants of Nature by John D. Barrow). Armed we this hypothesis, we realise something important:

We observe the constants of nature to have the values that they do, because we are doing so at a time and place that they are such as to allow life to exist.

Now it is entirely possible that these constants truly are constant, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. So what then? Well, the way I see it, is that there is no reason to believe that the universe that we can experience is all that there is. Perhaps our "big bang" was nothing more than a mere twinkle in an ultimate meta-universal explosion? Just as there are billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in our universe, why not billions of universes in our [Multiverse? Bulk?].

This idea is not absurd as it may seem. The idea of other universes has cropped up in theoretical physics numerous times, most importantly in String Theory/M-theory. Now I don't mean a "parallel world" in the sense of there being another world where another CSflim is sitting at his computer, in the knowledge that Hitler won WWII, a la Sliders. I mean quite simply that as there are other countries/planets/suns/galaxies, there are other universes.

Again, we can apply the idea that we are living in a universe with the constants of nature with the values that they are for the sole reason that this is the particular universe/part of the universe/time period of the universe/all of the above, that allows life to exist.

In essence the "Argument From Design" is false.

In your last paragraph, you then refer to something different, not the argument from design, but the argument from first cause.

The argument from first cause is probably the most popular argument for the existence of god, but ultimately it is inherently flawed beyond belief. I posted a thread here some time ago with an explanation why the argument from first cause is fallacious, and received no counter-argument.

I'll reprint some of that post here:
<HR>
The most extensive example of a rational "proof" for the existence of God is the question: Where did we come from?

Science has so far traced this back to The Big Bang. Most rational people accept that this is what happened, and that after billions of years life evolved on earth to produce us. But that begs the question...
"where did this Big Bang come from? Science claims that all energy and matter must come from other energy and matter. This minute, incredibly dense particle, how did it come into existence?"
Well, to be honest we don't know.
"Ah-ha! You don't know! Therefore God exists! That settles it! End of Story"
Now wait a minute! Just because we don't know where it comes from, doesn't mean that a reasonable explanation doesn't exist! It is very difficult to make any observations, or calculations given the immense time and distance. It is conceivable that a theory could be formulated about what caused it.
"Ah! You said what caused it! Well ultimately something else must have caused that something to happen. Something external of our reality/universe"
That's fair enough, I can accept that line of reasoning.
"Gotcha! An intangible wholly-other force external of our existence. i.e. God"
Now wait a minute... I will admit to the existence of something outside of our own sphere of existence. something which would be completely unintelligible to us, due to the nature of our being, but why do you say that it is God?
"Well, that is what we are DEFINING as God"
Fair enough, you can call it a God, I will call it an unintelligible force.
"So we are in agreement then?
Not quite. I have a number of questions.

How do you know that this force is a creative force.?
We have seen how chaos can arise from simplicity, and how complexity can arise from chaos. A singularity could not be considered "complex" why the need for it to be specifically created

How do you even know that this force is a conscious force, never mind even creativity, why would it even be conscious?

How do you know this force is omnipotent?
Apart from the very beginning, there is no evidence that this omnipotent being has intervened in the workings of the universe in the slightest. what makes you so sure that he could, even if he wanted to?

How is this force all knowing?

How do you know this force loves you? Why would this omnipotent being care for an insignificant arrangement of fundamental particles?

How does the existence of this force, imply that you have been bestowed with a spirit/soul or anything else?

How the hell does the existence of this external force guarantee you to eternal life? How does the existence of an external "physical" force imply an afterlife?

How does this force provide ethical guidance?
<HR>

Ultimately you must see that all the argument from first cause does is perform reducto ad absurdum on its own postulates:

1. All things must have a cause
2. The universe exists, therefore it must have had a cause
3. Whatever caused the universe also most have had a cause, and so on
4. This chain will continue until we find something that had no cause (or was "self-caused")
5. Therefore God exists.

Point 4 contradicts point 1, so the entire argument collapses. And also, even if we manage to deduce 4 (which I believe we can, though not with this particular argument) as I have shown above, point 5 does not follow as a conclusion.

__________________

Nevus

I'm sorry if this is duplicate information, I didn't have time to read through the entire thread before class.

Dr. Tipler is in my humble opinion one of the greatest scientists of our time. Check out some of his books and read his articles. I just finished The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, probably the most extensively researched religious text ever. No, I'm not Dr. Tipler, just a fan. Although you may never know for sure.

http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/

Slims

Of course it's that way. If the universe were any different, then life as we know it would not exist. Perhaps it would happen elsewhere, and those beings would marvel that if their planet were any closer to their sun, or any farther away, then their form of life would not be possible.

Basically, simply because of the fact that we exist, the universe has to be exactly balanced to allow our existence. If it were different, we wouldn't be able to observe it.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

aarchaon

Universe different = we would not be here to question. End of story. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest some kind of supernatural power creating our world for us. Using mathematics you can see that it is likely that there are similar worlds out there, that could have life like ours on it. Also, this may not be the first Big Bang as we know it, there could have been 10, 100, 1 million big bangs before this one, each of those not suitable for life as we know it to exist.

__________________
Green. Yellow. Blue.

tisonlyi

The earth, when life originally came into being, was not a wonderful environment - exactly the right temperature, etc. for life.

Primitive lifeforms over many millions of years terraformed the environment of the planet into something much more comfortable.

Kinda-like breaking in a pair of plastic shoes.

:P

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Mojo_PeiPei

Likely doesn't amount to prove or truth. The Drake formula is heavily based on an assumption.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Yakk

Science tends not to disprove the existance of god.

Science tends to remove the requirement for god to exist to explain things: pushes back the frontier of "acts of god" and replaces it with things mankind can explain.

Everything science explains could still be god acting in very particular ways, but what science did was provide an alternative explanation that doesn't require a god.

Don't expect science to ever disprove the existance of god. You can keep your faith, whatever it is, secure in that knowledge.

As for the anthropomorphic principle, there have been a number of explanations that handled it pretty well. =)

One bit of labelling that might help.

There is both the "weak" and "strong" anthropomorphic principle. The WAP is "the universe must be friendly to life as we know it, because we are here". The SAP is "the universe was made to be friendly to life as we know it, because we are here". (correct me if I'm on crack, please!)

Link: http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/20...tures_12.shtml

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Paq

ever think that we are the product of an infinite number of monkeys sitting at an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time

__________________
Live.

Chris