Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[TechTiger]

No it makes complete sense, modern science shows us that if he didn't make the universe so large then it wouldn't have been homologous enough to support life and all the 120 other fine tuned constants would have had to be different, which would fail to support life.

You are assuming that the life we have on Earth is the only form of life capable of existing in this universe. And even on this planet, life is thriving in all sorts of extreme environments.
And how do you know that all the constants are omnipresent? I also find your number 120 quite specific. Can you provide a list of them?

 

[Blood Wraith]

I still don't get how Story's sardonicism went over a couple of heads.

 

[Paulhoff]

[Story was being sarcastic.

Then a little at the end would have show someone not knowing how Story is would help.

Paul

That mesns you don't have to drop dead.

 

[Paulhoff]

Well, if you read the bible, there would be the only planet it talks about, "Earth" and noty that, "Planet" didn't mean the earth, it was anything outside the stars that moved in the sky.

Paul

 

[RichardMNixon]

I also find your number 120 quite specific. Can you provide a list of them?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm

It already gets bad at #5, which is just #4 divided by #3.

 

[Story]

I still don't get how Story's sardonicism went over a couple of heads.

Poe's law in action.

 

[nemesiss]

I also find your number 120 quite specific. Can you provide a list of them?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm

It already gets bad at #5, which is just #4 divided by #3.

asked him to give that list quite early already.
of the 120, hardly 10 might be relevant for a universal constant, which another few were shot down by a recent study...which i can't recall at this time of night.

 

[Story]

How are "planets" a constant?

 

[MetalMeltdown]

There is a load of nonsense in the constant page, but this really baffles me:

entropy level of the universe
if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

Are you saying that the total entropy of the universe is a constant ?

So you believe the universe has existed without beginning, eternally ? so how about the energy and second law of thermodynamics ?

So, the 2nd law of thermo is fine with you when you use it to """""disprove""""" an eternal universe, but you don't even think twice about throwing it out of the window to prove the opposite point. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Do you even bother reading the stuff you post or are you just randomly copy pasting ?

I really admire the patience of some of you guys.

 

[borrofburi]

Do you even bother reading the stuff you post or are you just randomly copy pasting ?

He might be an authoritarian: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Whoa.... 2300th post... Hmm...

 

[nemesiss]

since nobody has claimed it yet.. .im calling CREATIONIST BINGO!!

gotten on;
2nd law of thermodymanics
transitional fossils/ gap in the fossil record
random/chance
compare ID to SETI/ archeology
repeat debunked arguments

others we gotten;
irreducible complexity
molecular "machines"
universe for life is finetuned
micro not macro evolution
quote mine darwin or other scientist
dna is "computercode"
mutations do not add information


note: i doubt he really cared for a real answer, more likely is that he wants confirmation/acceptance of his delusion... like shockofgod

 

[borrofburi]

compare ID to SETI/ archeology

I missed this one...

 

[nemesiss]

compare ID to SETI/ archeology

I missed this one...

that would be this one... a little bit indirect, but still...

Oh, anthropocentrists.

I will never understand how someone can believe a universe was created for a single species when that species only inhabits an infinitesimal fraction of said universe.

Human ain't special, we're just a transitional species.

Here it comes really beautyfully ....... :lol:

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/why-is-our-universe-so-large-t249.htm

Sir Rees would certainly disagree with you :

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.


A Scientific Perspective of Humankind and the Vast Universe

If God is the Creator of the universe and the author of the Bible, accurate observation of the universe will ultimately prove to be consistent with His revelation. By combining the general revelation of science with the special revelation of the Bible, we should be rewarded with a greater understanding of the nature of our Creator and His intentions for mankind.

In his recent book Why the Universe is the Way It Is{3}, Hugh Ross points out a number of areas where combining the latest observations of astronomy and physics with biblical theology provides us with fuller answers for some of the tough questions of life. One area he focuses on is the question we have been examining: "Does the vastness of this universe mean that we are insignificant and/or accidental?"

If we assume, as most skeptics and seekers would, that the physical laws of this universe have remained constant from the beginning of the universe until now, then the current state of scientific knowledge points to three reasons why the universe must occupy the mass and volume that it does in order for advanced carbon based life to exist on this planet.

1. The exact mass of the universe was necessary for life supporting elements to exist. Life requires heavier elements such as oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These elements are produced in the nuclear furnaces of stars. If there were less mass in the universe, only lighter elements such as helium would be produced. If there were more mass, only heavier elements, such as iron, would be produced. In fact, the amount of mass and dark energy in the universe must be fine tuned to less than one part in 10 to the 60th power, or one part in one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, to have a universe that can create a life supporting solar system and planet.

2. The exact mass of the universe was required to regulate the expansion of the universe to allow the formation of the sun and the solar system. Amazingly, it turns out that the same total mass that results in the right mix of life supporting elements also results in the right amount of gravity to dampen the expansion of matter across the surface of the space-time continuum to allow the formation of stars like the sun which are capable of supporting a planet like earth. If the universe were expanding faster, stars and solar systems would not form. If the universe were expanding slower, giant stars and black holes would dominate the universe. Once again the total matter in the universe is fine tuned to support life. And what an amazing coincidence: the number that creates the right mix of elements also creates the right expansion rate. This dual fine tuning is much less likely than achieving the financial returns guaranteed by Bernie Madoff!

3. The vast volume of the universe is required to give the earth just the right amount of light and other electromagnetic radiation to support life and not destroy it. Life not only requires a planet with the right mix of elements orbiting the right kind of sun in just the right solar system; it also requires a "just right" galactic environment. Astronomers has discovered what they call "the galactic habitable zone" for our Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 26,000 light years from the center of the galaxy. Any planet closer to the center will experience deadly radiation levels. Any planet further away from the center would lack the mix of heavy elements necessary for advanced life. But the vast majority of this habitable zone is inside one of the uninhabitable spiral arms of the galaxy. Since stars revolve around the galactic center at a rate different than the spiral arm structure based on their distance from the center of the galaxy, most solar systems pass through deadly spiral arms over the course of time. Our solar system occupies a very special place as Hugh Ross points out: "The solar system holds a special position in the Milky Way . . . the one distance from the core where stars orbit the galaxy at the same rate as its spiral arm structure does."{4}

Once again we are faced with a divine "coincidence": the same fine-tuned distance required to safely place a habitable planet is also the exact distance required to keep that planet out of the deadly spiral arms.

Not only must the earth be located far from the center of the Milky Way, the Milky Way must be located far enough away from other galaxies to maintain the stability of its spiral structure. Many aspects of the Milky Way appear to be very rare or unique in the universe.

 

[Squawk]

nemesiss, that's awesome, not seen that before

 

[Japhia888]

I also find your number 120 quite specific. Can you provide a list of them?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm

It already gets bad at #5, which is just #4 divided by #3.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tuning-of-our-earth-and-solar-system-t180.htm

Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth,

all these must be right . What makes you think, chance is a good explanation ?

 

[lrkun]

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tuning-of-our-earth-and-solar-system-t180.htm

Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth,

all these must be right . What makes you think, chance is a good explanation ?

What makes you think chance is a bad explanation?

Why must it be right?

How is this related to the thread title wherein you inquired if there is a better explanation for our existence than god? God's explanation as you stated earlier is that, he wanted us therefore he made us.

:shock:

 

[AndromedasWake]

Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth,

all these must be right . What makes you think, chance is a good explanation ?

I note that you've ignored my earlier posts, but I'd like to ask you do me the courtesy of responding to this one.

There is no 'right' position in our galaxy until you supply a meaningful metric for assessment. If the Galactic Habitable Zone is what you're hinting at, then we have quite a bit of leeway with where our Solar System is placed (about 7,000 light years to be sort of precise) but your second point is nothing short of absurd. We will ALWAYS observe stellar clouds, wherever we are in the galaxy, because a galaxy is a big bunch of stellar clouds. Our position prohibits us from clealy observing the far side of the Milky Way due to the observation shadow of the Galactic Centre, and as a keen visual observer, I can think of an effectively infinite number of places I'd like the Earth to be situated at in order to get a better view. By no means is our distance from the centre, or specific position in the Orion spur the only place where we can explore the Universe.

Your argument opened with two straight falsehoods, and continues with a backwards assessment of the oh-so-perfect world we inhabit. Consider for a moment that life arose and evolved by natural process, its survival contingent on its adaptability to the environment. This is where the evidence is pointing, so as a matter of reason it is more correct to say that life is adapted for Earth, rather than Earth being adapted for life. Earth has a relatively stable history, and Venus and Mars were once similar but suffered catastrophe. Yet we still can't rule out the possibility of recent or current life on Mars, however unlikely it seems, or some other places in the Solar System, let alone the single galaxy we happen to inhabit. To suggest otherwise is to display stunning - almost headache inducing - arrogance.

Just a minor point about Jupiter too. It attracts all asteroids? Really?

Could all the dinosaurs in the room please stand up? No? We also find asteroid impacts everywhere else we've looked in the Solar System. Asteroids impact the Sun, the terrestrial planets (including Earth) and the Moon. The asteroid belt is still here, and just recently the Pan-STARRS team published findings of a potentially hazardous object. We're in a shooting gallery, we're hit every day, and the next large impact is just a matter of time.

Once again, your argument appears to be making the case for a powerful but ultimately limited designer; a slave to the laws of nature, since creating asteroids and throwing Jupiter in as a fudge factor is not the sort of perfectly efficient design we'd expect from a perfect, omni-benevolent all-powerful being.

Shouldn't your thread be titled 'Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than a powerful alien species'?

Looking forward to your reply.

 

[Japhia888]

What makes you think chance is a bad explanation?

simple to answer. The odds are so astronomically small, that it makes simply no sense to believe, chance could be a reasonable driving factor.

 

[lrkun]

What makes you think chance is a bad explanation?

simple to answer. The odds are so astronomically small, that it makes simply no sense to believe, chance could be a reasonable driving factor.

But there are odds. While god has no explanation at all and not odds on its favor at all.

.001 > .0 :lol:

 

[Japhia888]

There is no 'right' position in our galaxy until you supply a meaningful metric for assessment. If the Galactic Habitable Zone is what you're hinting at, then we have quite a bit of leeway with where our Solar System is placed (about 7,000 light years to be sort of precise) but your second point is nothing short of absurd. We will ALWAYS observe stellar clouds, wherever we are in the galaxy, because a galaxy is a big bunch of stellar clouds. Our position prohibits us from clealy observing the far side of the Milky Way due to the observation shadow of the Galactic Centre, and as a keen visual observer, I can think of an effectively infinite number of places I'd like the Earth to be situated at in order to get a better view. By no means is our distance from the centre, or specific position in the Orion spur the only place where we can explore the Universe.

Perfect Viewing Station

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/070601-001-egpi.html

Our location in the solar system and galaxy allows for another fascinating related phenomenon: We can observe, measure, analyze and define our galactic neighborhood. Many would not even consider this, but it is extremely rare.

Much of the universe is pitch black. Other locations are densely packed with clusters of stars, making the sky far too bright to observe the vast array of celestial bodies. Is it mere coincidence that we are located in the perfect spot?

It is hard to call it mere coincidence that all the factors to produce conditions for advanced life are directly aligned with the conditions that make it possible to observe the universe. It would take a species as advanced as man to understand and measure the universe,and a galaxy, solar system and planet that is perfectly designed for mankind to develop!

Consider the points covered:

(1) The size of our sun keeps Earth's temperature in the range necessary for life. The size of our star also does not flood our planet with radiation, which would make it impossible to observe and measure distant galaxies.

(2) Our metal-rich solar system allows for terrestrial planets and advanced life. This rich array of metals allows for technological advancement and the creation of tools to observe our world, solar system and universe.

(3) The location of the habitable zone means that life can flourish under an atmosphere perfect for viewing the night sky.

(4) The gas giants in our solar system are far enough away to shield the inner planets from asteroids and comets. This distance also means they do not block our view or distort observations with their gravitational effects.

(5) Planets in our solar system exhibit rare, nearly circular orbits, allowing the stability required for life. This also means extremely precise relational measurements can be made of our universe.

(6) Distance from other stars in the Milky Way keeps us from being bombarded with deadly radiation. This also means our night sky is dark, making viewing possible. If we were too close to the black hole in the galaxy's center, X-ray and gamma radiation would not only destroy life but make precise observations impossible!

Each characteristic allows for both life and discoverability! Could this just be an amazing coincidence?

Your argument opened with two straight falsehoods, and continues with a backwards assessment of the oh-so-perfect world we inhabit. Consider for a moment that life arose and evolved by natural process, its survival contingent on its adaptability to the environment. This is where the evidence is pointing, so as a matter of reason it is more correct to say that life is adapted for Earth, rather than Earth being adapted for life.

http://academic.udayton.edu/WilliamRichards/Intro%20essays/Collins,%20Fine-tuning.htm

Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe,for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy,is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur. As eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many. . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (1979, p. 251),in short, life as we know it would be impossible.

Scientists and others call this extraordinary balancing of the fundamental physical structure of the universe for life the "fine-tuning of the cosmos." It has been extensively discussed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists, especially since the early 1970s, with many articles and books written on the topic. Today, many consider it as providing the most persuasive current argument for the existence of God. For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies claims that with regard to basic structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203).

Many examples of this fine-tuning can be given.1 One particularly important category of fine-tuning is that of the constants of physics. The constants of physics are a set of fundamental numbers that, when plugged into the laws of physics, determine the basic structure of the universe. An example of such a constant is the gravitational constant G that is part of Newton's law of gravity, F = GM1M2/r2. G essentially determines the strength of gravity between two masses. If one were to double the value of G, for instance, then the force of gravity between any two masses would double.

So far, physicists have discovered four forces in nature,gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom. Each of these forces has its own coupling constant that determines its strength, in analogy to the gravitational constant C. Using one of the standard dimensionless measures of force strengths (Barrow and Tipler, 1986, pp. 293-295), gravity is the weakest of the forces, and the strong nuclear force is the strongest, being a factor of 1040 -- or ten thousand billion, billion, billion, billion,times stronger than gravity.