Fine Tuning of the Universe - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-16-2006, 07:21 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:46 PM
Quote:
IMO it also takes a heck of a lot of faith to accept the view of the big bang as it seems so silly.
Really? So it is an act of faith for scientists to see galaxies racing away from us because the space in between is expanding and then after formulating the theory that they all had to have started somewhere when their motion is rewound only to have the theory supported by later evidence of cosmic background radiation.

Theories aren't just guesses pulled out of thin air, they are the explanations for observations that can explain them the best and fit in with what else we understand.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 07:24 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780


Throwing a dart across the universe and believing it will hit a bullseye on the other side sure seems as if it would take alot of faith to me.
The evidence that a deity exists is 0%, and I make that statement on the basis that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a deity, that such a form would violate the laws of physics and that everything we observe has purely natural causes.

How was the bullseye on the other side of the universe statement formulated?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 08:07 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
By testing what exactly how subatomic particles behave and if they are interacting outside the dimensions of our own universe perhaps.Imagine a world where all people were so resigned, right now we can't test a theory of infinite universes but that doesn't mean that is an impossibility forever - given the mathematical basis for the hypothesis I think that infinite universes is more valid than any argument for design. It's like when Behe published Darwins Black Box and had a whole piece on how the flagellum was irreducably complex only to have the evolutionary pathway discovered before a decade had passed, science is a progressive system of knowledge and claiming that something is and always will be impossible when we lack all the evidence or knowledge will generally lead to problems.Only if at some stage I had a framework that required a beginning, an eternal infinite universe or higher dimension would nullify the need for any creator.Really? do you have any idea how big the universe in it's entirety is? We can only see 13.7 billion light years away but it could stretch on for infinite - in that situation then every possible permutation of particles would play out, given that life obeys the laws of physics there is absolutely no need to introduce a designer - as far as complexity goes surely you must know that evolution is not purely random - it is directed by population pressures leading to specialisation and diversification, not driven by the hand of a mystical and inherently unfalsifiable entity but purely by natural selection acting upon infinitely varying replicators.
Wanderer, believe it or not - I do appreciate your line of thinking.

I guess the way you could view my position is this – that there is sufficient scientific reason to believe in a Creator and an Intelligent Designer, that it is not just faith. If you are not convinced, there is little chance that I can convince you. Silja made a good point.

Perhaps as you pursue that advanced biology degree (I think you said somewhere in one of these threads that you were considering this) you will come across a discovering that will turn a light on (regarding God) – perhaps not.

There are many Christians that think that the ONLY thing that matters is faith. Faith is definitely the most important thing for us as Christians, but I also think that discovering and cataloguing this beautiful universe using the tools of science is a good thing It only supports my faith, and it does nothing to diminish it.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 08:21 PM   #34
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON

I guess the way you could view my position is this – that there is sufficient scientific reason to believe in a Creator and an Intelligent Designer, that it is not just faith.

Perhaps as you pursue that advanced biology degree (I think you said somewhere in one of these threads that you were considering this) you will come across a discovering that will turn a light on (regarding God) – perhaps not.
A_Wanderer has presented a very good case, as usual, and far more eloquently than I ever could. I'm genuinely curious though, what exactly are the scientific reasons you speak of? Specific studies from peer-reviewed journals, as opposed to essays or brief quotes, I mean. Can you provide links so I could do some reading? Thanks.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 08:57 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The evidence that a deity exists is 0%, and I make that statement on the basis that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a deity, that such a form would violate the laws of physics and that everything we observe has purely natural causes.

How was the bullseye on the other side of the universe statement formulated?
If you put your faith in Jesus and experienced and felt what I've felt in my life due to what I see as His mercy then you'd understand what I mean. I don't expect you to believe in God when you've never put faith in Him, though.

Considering the proof I've seen in my own life and mind, I'd sooner believe that God exists than the big bang theory, which is itself EXTREMELY hard for me to believe despite my faith in God's creation.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 12:46 AM   #36
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 05:16 PM
People need to understand once and for all that yes it is a 100% certainty that life will occur at some level given the size of the universe. A 99.9999 ^ (some huge number)% chance that life will not occur at anyone one time at anyone place is hardly an ominous number to scientists given the virtually infinite scope of the universe.

Arguments for design can be related to the analogy of a card game. It's like been dealt 30 cards in a row, and examining the hand that was given to you. You then calculate the odds of you getting this hand (1 in x billion or whatever), then say the odds of you getting this hand is so unlikely that it must be contrived! Ridiculous!
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 05:00 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 06:46 AM
I think the bigger disagreement here isn't over the odds of life evolving on Earth, but the universe itself spontaneously appearing.

I agree with your statement about life on Earth though (but I still believe in creation).
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:07 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Again, as I've stated before, there's a big difference between "intelligent design" and "evolutionary creationism" (a.k.a., "theistic evolution"). Both acknowledge that God had a hand in the creation of life and the universe. The former, however, dismisses large bodies of secular science, in favor of religious-based pseudoscience, while the latter accepts secular science in its entirety, while then attributing it to God.

The main difference is that believers in "intelligent design" often engage in studies that are nothing short of bad science, while the "evolutionary creationists" create the kind of science that you'd expect from any respectable scientist. In other words, their religious beliefs generally do not affect their science abilities--which is precisely the way it should be.

Why I had to make this distinction yet again is because I find it rather disturbing that this distinction is rarely made by the press. When they say stuff like "designer," they're obviously implying "intelligent design." However, I find it highly doubtful that an accomplished scientist like Stephen Hawking would be an ID proponent. It is far more logical that he believes in "evolutionary creationism," which would not affect his scientific credibility.

All in all, however, these are the religious beliefs of the scientists. They have not uncovered proof of God. In fact, they certainly have not uncovered proof of the Christian concept of God. Science is much closer to proving the existence of Brahman than they would be in proving Christianity...heh.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 10:18 AM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780



Considering the proof I've seen in my own life and mind, I'd sooner believe that God exists than the big bang theory, which is itself EXTREMELY hard for me to believe despite my faith in God's creation.
Shart, I'm not sure why you are so opposed to the Big Bang. It is one of the best arguments for God existence. It points to a one time "Creation" event. It proves the Physical universe has a definite beginning.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 10:33 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
if we live in an infinite universe then life is a 100% certainty regardless of how small the chances of it's formation are.
Actually, most Astrophysicists DO NOT believe that our universe is infinite. Most accept the Big Bang and we are observing the remnants moving away from that singularity in an accelerating manner (this is where understanding Dark Energy/Dark Matter becomes so important).

Any discussion beyond this known physical universe become the realm of Metaphysics - a realm in which Philosophy and Theology usually take over from Physics.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 10:35 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Shart, I'm not sure why you are so opposed to the Big Bang. It is one of the best arguments for God existence. It points to a one time "Creation" event. It proves the Physical universe has a definite beginning.

Agree 100%. Science has long taught me that nothing can come from nothing. According to the Big Bang, there was once nothing, but something came from this nothing. Saying that all the material for the Big Bang was just hanging around, waiting to be used doen't cut it with me. Something had to orginally create the material necessary for the Big Bang to occur. This is where my leap of faith occurs - I fully accept evolution and such, but I believe that there is a God behind the creation of the universe.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 10:46 AM   #42
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 05:16 PM
If you are advocating the likelyhood that a God created the universe, then the logical follow on from that is questioning who created God....and then who created the God that created God? You can't just say that God always existed, you might as well say the 'singularity' always existed in that case.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 11:28 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Someone once asked Martin Luther who created God. Luther answered that God was creating Hell for people like him.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 12:33 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Someone once asked Martin Luther who created God. Luther answered that God was creating Hell for people like him.
I think that was a joke. At least I hope it was.

To answer the question - who created God? – the Judeo-Christian view is that God is transcendent beyond the physical universe – He does not require a beginning and end. This of course makes Him the perfect candidate to create the physical universe, since He is not bound by its constraints.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 01:33 PM   #45
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Science is much closer to proving the existence of Brahman than they would be in proving Christianity
You know, melon, I find myself agreeing with you so often that it surprises me when I don't but on this subject I have to respond with a resounding huh??!? What are you talking about?
__________________

__________________
silja is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com