-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God
- Thread starter Japhia888
- Start date
- Status
Resident Dead Man
New Member
Japhia888 said:
Have not read all 11 pages of this thread but the first one was enough. You don't have a debate. Your theory and position is based solely on a Holy Book that is based entirely on mythology and second hand hearsay and the list goes on. Our existence is not dependent upon some unseen God that apparently does not give a rats ass about the creation he was supposed to have created. Theists are wholly guilty of this type tactic I would imagine at some point your going to start spouting Bible verses trying to prove the Bible with itself which we all know cannot be done. Our existence is based on observable fact and reason not some fairy tale.
TheFlyingBastard
New Member
Well this is doing the guy a disservice.Resident Dead Man said:
(Ignoring that he's used everything including quote mining now.)
At least he's trying to stay away from biblethumping.
Resident Dead Man
New Member
TheFlyingBastard said:
Thats good. Maybe I did do a little disservice there by not reading all 11 pages.
TheFlyingBastard
New Member
A little bit of flicking through the pages can tell you that.Resident Dead Man said:
Resident Dead Man
New Member
TheFlyingBastard said:A little bit of flicking through the pages can tell you that.Resident Dead Man said:
Will certainly do that later no time right now.........
nemesiss said:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2006/06/string-theory.html
The problem is, as I understand it, that string theory (or, more generally, the theory that physicist call "M-theory") seems to allow a very large number of possible solutions, or as the physicists call them, vacuua (as in the plural of "vacuum"). In fact, there are roughly 10-to-the-500th-power vacuua. That's an immense number that I don't even know how to describe except by using scientific notation. It's much more than a googol, or even a googol of googols. But it's less than a googolplex.
Sparky said:Brilliant analogy!
yes, it brilliantly FAILS !!
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm
"Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad consisting of 100 marksmen. You hear the command to fire and the crashing roar of the rifles. You then realize you are still alive, and that not a single bullet found its mark. How are you to react to this rather unlikely event?"
'Of course you do not observe that you are dead, because if you were dead, you would not be able to observe that fact!' However, this does not stop you from being amazed and surprised by the fact that you did survive against overwhelming odds. Moreover, you would try to deduce the reason for this unlikely event, which was too improbable to happen by chance. Surely, the best explanation is that there was some plan among the marksmen to miss you on purpose. In other words, you are probably alive for a very definite reason, not because of some random, unlikely, freak accident."
"So we should conclude the same with the cosmos. It is natural for us to ask why we escaped the firing squad. Because it is so unlikely that this amazing universe with its precariously balanced constants could have come about by sheer accident, it is likely that there was some purpose in mind, before or during its creation. And the mind in question belongs to God."
Story said:
http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/why-is-our-universe-so-large-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.)
i have not made the assertion, the earth was tuned only to host us , humans.
why ?
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
No, the problem is, you don't understand anything. It doesn't matter how many solutions are available in M-Theory, or how improbable (even given an understanding of probability, which you most certainly do not possess) each of those solutions is. First, all of your cretinous, rectally extracted probability statements are based on a sample set populated by one sample, rendering probability caluclations next to meaningless. Second, given that sample set, and given that, in every single instance of a cosmo capable of supporting life actually supporting life, it has happened on every occasion, rendering a probability of 1:1.
Seriously, dude. You've hashed and rehashed this fuckwitted guff on every forum it has ever been my extreme displeasure not to be able to avoid encountering you on, and you are just as wrong now as you were the first time.
You have no fucking clue about probability. You have no fucking clue about information. Frankly, I would be suspicious if you asserted that you could tie your shoelaces, or spell your own name. You have no argument. All the drivel you have posted has been categorically debunked. Why do you even bother?
It isn't even like most of the members here haven't already seen your rectal vindaloo, sicne most of them were members of RDF and are now members of Ratskep.
Seriously, dude. You've hashed and rehashed this fuckwitted guff on every forum it has ever been my extreme displeasure not to be able to avoid encountering you on, and you are just as wrong now as you were the first time.
You have no fucking clue about probability. You have no fucking clue about information. Frankly, I would be suspicious if you asserted that you could tie your shoelaces, or spell your own name. You have no argument. All the drivel you have posted has been categorically debunked. Why do you even bother?
It isn't even like most of the members here haven't already seen your rectal vindaloo, sicne most of them were members of RDF and are now members of Ratskep.
Why is it faith and stupidity seem to have an multiplying effect on each other?
Why can't creationist argue without quote mining and lying?
I think that's really what it boils down to. Someone who believes in a naturalistic view of the world doesn't need to quote mine, doesn't need to lie, doesn't need to do anything underhanded to get their point across. We can go "here is our mountain of fucking evidence" and let it speak for itself.
A creationist has to play with terms, quote mine, lie through their teeth, rely on logically fallacious arguments and literally discount scientific laws to try and prove their point.
They literally have to sin in the eyes of their God by bearing false witness to prove their point.
Can you number how many scientific breakthroughs creationism has given us? I can, it's zero.
Can you number how many scientific breakthroughs the naturalistic study and model of the universe has given us? Oh yeah. ALL OF THE SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS.
In some sports, if one team was winning a million to zero, the ref would call it a mercy match.
Ref?
REF!?
Why can't creationist argue without quote mining and lying?
I think that's really what it boils down to. Someone who believes in a naturalistic view of the world doesn't need to quote mine, doesn't need to lie, doesn't need to do anything underhanded to get their point across. We can go "here is our mountain of fucking evidence" and let it speak for itself.
A creationist has to play with terms, quote mine, lie through their teeth, rely on logically fallacious arguments and literally discount scientific laws to try and prove their point.
They literally have to sin in the eyes of their God by bearing false witness to prove their point.
Can you number how many scientific breakthroughs creationism has given us? I can, it's zero.
Can you number how many scientific breakthroughs the naturalistic study and model of the universe has given us? Oh yeah. ALL OF THE SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS.
In some sports, if one team was winning a million to zero, the ref would call it a mercy match.
Ref?
REF!?
Japhia888 said:
In this argument you are aware that you assert that if there is a god, then he is bound by rules.
Because an omnipotent god would not need or predict that laws of nature would exist.
Then a god that can be proven because of laws of nature would assert that it was a theory of god that predicted that observable laws of nature existed, this could be if it was bound by them and thus not omnipotent.
If this god is not omnipotent and is bound by laws of nature, he/she would therefore be a part of nature and explainable.
It would be the very objective of physics to study this phenomenon.
Your argument fails because for a number of reasons. My favourite one being the fact that the nature of this god you're trying to prove is completely obscured. If there is a god, we don't know if there is a heaven or hell, if he's concerned with the earth, if there are souls, if any religion is correct, if there are other gods, if he's a dude or a dudette or if he/she killed them self after creating everything.
Therefore the idea that there is a god is as meaningless as solipsism or the idea that the entire universe was formed instantaneously 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, even if there were reasons to believe they were true. It wouldn't affect us in any way.
Japhia888 said:
Okay then, what about the earth's inner layers of mantle and magma that are completely hostile to all life.
Japhia888 said:
Imagine a universe without stars.
Logic-Nanaki
New Member
Japhia888 said:
the present visible universe is around 13,7 billion light years +-150 million years.
http://www.universetoday.com/36469/size-of-the-universe/
the size of the universe it self is estimated to be around 150 billion light years across. now. why is this little pale blue dot so special as you want it to be?
I'd say it's NOT special. evolution has occurred so all life on this planet has adapted to the environment it is present in. filling up niches as it went along the last 3 billion years or so.
just a quick digression if i may. what if there suddenly came, independence-day style, a flock of alien space-ships and said to us that we all had to join their church of the holy duck or we will all be instantly vaporized. would you still stick to your Abrahamic god?
what most of us are trying to say, is that fine tuning is not the case. because saying that if some of the "120 finely tuned values" were to be different, then everything would be different. that's it. is difference something bad? i don' know. maybe a value-change in the "sun-earth-moon value" could have made us all filthy rich or more happy or whatever with scales or fins.
Life and evolution is NOT a ladder of success. just because we happen to be this way does not equal that it's the only way to be.
Repeat: we are not that special that a omniscient, omnipotent, all loving sky-daddy to make a universe this big, for one galaxy, having one star, with one planet making this set of life.
When there could be lots of life in the universe with different sets of genes and looks.
Your Funny Uncle
New Member
Actually when I pointed out that his very best arguments only pointed to deism he had to resort to scripture to get from there to his actual position which is Christianity.TheFlyingBastard said:
Japhia888 said:
quoting directly from a blog is not really a compelling argument.
another point is, that this person says himself he has little knowledge of string theories and the M-theory
Then the argument becomes even less convincing, since he didn't ( and most likely can't ) explain a number such as 10^500.
another problem for the M-theory is that its difficult to test it and make predictions, since its impossible to observe in higher dimensions. This factor doesn't make it a compelling argument for creation, because it can't provide (positive) evidence of creation.
godisabullet
New Member
Wow.
I'm absolutely amazed at the patience you guys have.
To the OP:
You seem to be starting a "debate" over nothing. At best you're being disingenuous and at worst it's straight up trolling. My bet is on the latter.
As has been stated on numerous occasions throughout the thread you need to first define how good an "explanation for our existence" god actually is then people can start with some sort of "better" explanation (which they have done anyway but you just ignore it all).
Answer the questions people are asking you and come up with a definition - as has been said, plant the goalposts and don't move them!
The problem is that you don't have any proof that god even exists so really it's game over without a shot being fired.
It's my bet that you're here trying to get people to prove that god doesn't exist. Why do creationists have to rack their brains all the time to try and find other (rhetorically more complex but just as idiotic) ways to convince people that their version of god exists. Just show us evidence that he/she/it does exist and we'll re-think everything we hold to be true. There's no need to try and phrase the question differently. We all know what it is you're trying to get at.
I'm absolutely amazed at the patience you guys have.
To the OP:
You seem to be starting a "debate" over nothing. At best you're being disingenuous and at worst it's straight up trolling. My bet is on the latter.
As has been stated on numerous occasions throughout the thread you need to first define how good an "explanation for our existence" god actually is then people can start with some sort of "better" explanation (which they have done anyway but you just ignore it all).
Answer the questions people are asking you and come up with a definition - as has been said, plant the goalposts and don't move them!
The problem is that you don't have any proof that god even exists so really it's game over without a shot being fired.
It's my bet that you're here trying to get people to prove that god doesn't exist. Why do creationists have to rack their brains all the time to try and find other (rhetorically more complex but just as idiotic) ways to convince people that their version of god exists. Just show us evidence that he/she/it does exist and we'll re-think everything we hold to be true. There's no need to try and phrase the question differently. We all know what it is you're trying to get at.
retardedsociety
New Member
-Simple things become more complex-
By this principal we live every single day, a baby is slowly growing inside a woman, and its at first microscopic 46 chromosomes put together all the way to a full grown developed baby with a central nervous system, blood, bones, a brain, etc.
These things might seem like magic to the untrained eye, I bet the first humans to reason in the past were amazed of things like these, perhaps now we don't since we understand them
The same goes with the universe, there are things we understand and others that we don't, but just cause we don't understand things it doesn't make them supernatural, it simply makes them unknown to us.
We need to be ok with what we know, we can't have all answers in one shot
Religion has people's minds hooked on "You need to give me an explanation of everything like religion pretends to do"
Be happy you were not born in an era where you would hear from an old man who says the earth is not the center of the universe, to have people laugh at him and lock him up in a house arrest for the rest of his life.
Galileo should be the prime example of how we should view science, a method of understanding, that it's oppressed by ignorant religious people.
That's it
By this principal we live every single day, a baby is slowly growing inside a woman, and its at first microscopic 46 chromosomes put together all the way to a full grown developed baby with a central nervous system, blood, bones, a brain, etc.
These things might seem like magic to the untrained eye, I bet the first humans to reason in the past were amazed of things like these, perhaps now we don't since we understand them
The same goes with the universe, there are things we understand and others that we don't, but just cause we don't understand things it doesn't make them supernatural, it simply makes them unknown to us.
We need to be ok with what we know, we can't have all answers in one shot
Religion has people's minds hooked on "You need to give me an explanation of everything like religion pretends to do"
Be happy you were not born in an era where you would hear from an old man who says the earth is not the center of the universe, to have people laugh at him and lock him up in a house arrest for the rest of his life.
Galileo should be the prime example of how we should view science, a method of understanding, that it's oppressed by ignorant religious people.
That's it
TheFlyingBastard
New Member
In that case, I stand corrected.Your Funny Uncle said:
- Status