Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[Japhia888]

If science would be that bad in collecting data, it would not be reliable for anything, and we could not make and predictions, and try to understand our reality at all.

:facepalm:
Japhia, please take an introductory laboratory course. This is freshman year of college at latest.

Ok. Lets consider all statements made of all these astro physicists as bollock, as some unreliable guess, at best....... i just wonder, why militant atheists, like Dawkins, Stenger, Vilenkin, and many others, do not doubt about these numbers...... :?: :!:

 

[borrofburi]

I noticed you skipped this, so I'm re-presenting it to you in case you happened to miss it.

The best explanation is certainly the one, that comes closest to the truth. Which has the best support through science, philosophy, and religion.

I asked for a metric, you continue to fail to present a metric, and continue to use vague language with unfastened goalposts (you changed "best explanation" to "closest to the truth" and "best supported", these are just as vague and ambiguous). Nail those goalposts to the ground or... hmm... well: or fuck off.

I will not play bullshit moving-the-goal-posts rhetorical games, and there's a very hefty chance that playing such (almost always dishonest) games will lead to banning. This is not yet an "official forum mod warning"; consider it an informal warning from a forum mod that the path you're heading down is not good.

 

[Unwardil]

@ Japhia

See, wrong again.

It's not about taking the numbers for granted.

The numbers are constantly being tested and retested to get ever closer to the reality, all the while acknowledging that we will probably never develop a perfect instrument.

It's not about the numbers being right, it's about them being righter than they were before.

Every theory is true for a given value of true. The goal of science is to edge by very slight degrees towards a state of greater understanding. Every scientific theory is constantly being rewritten, upgraded to conform with new data. That doesn't mean that all current scientific knowledge is 'wrong' it means that we currently don't know any better so it's 'right enough for now'. And you simply can't argue with the results produced by this method.

 

[Nelson]

I will say this again, even though I mentioned it in my last post. Discussion of the time variance of dimensionful constants is MEANINGLESS. The article you linked is about a time dependence of the fine structure constant. This will only tell you how the speed of light changes with respect to the Planck constant and the charge of the proton. You can never know which one of these three is changing, only how they change with respect to each other. In fact, I am going so far as to say that it has no meaning to ask which one of the three specifically is changing.

If you can't understand this very basic point, then how can we hope to discuss much more comprehensive issues like the origin of the universe itself?

Now, in response to a few other points.

If science would be that bad in collecting data, it would not be reliable for anything, and we could not make and predictions, and try to understand our reality at all.

Well, science is this "bad" at collecting data. There are larger uncertainties at first, and they shrink as technology and experimental techniques get better with time. This is why our values for constants vary.

It is clear to me from your responses that you really do not have even a basic understanding of experimental techniques and uncertainty.

Thats actually not ME asserting this. The information i have, does not rely on my own research. Gravity mysteries: Why is gravity fine-tuned?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... tuned.html

We have already established that there is no evidence that these constants can vary within our own universe. I have even argued that unless we are talking about dimensionless constants it is completely meaningless to discuss. But, I'll play the game for a bit and say let's think about what it would be like if these constants could vary and are set at the birth of the universe.

Then it makes sense that there must be a lot of other universe out there that have other fundamental constants. Then, are we surprised that we exists in a universe in which we are capable of existing? Or maybe there are not lot's of other universes in existence simultaneously, but rather the universe goes through cycles, with different constants in each iteration. Again, are we surprised to exist in one of the iterations in which we are capable of existing? What you want to do is postulate that these constants can vary, BUT the universe only ever existed and will only ever exist in the form it is in now. Then, in what sense do these constants vary? They only exist as they are in our current universe. I think there are major logical problems with our argument in general. How does god fit in to any of this again?

Special note:

I was going to continue responding at this point, but then I noticed that new responses have been posted and more facepalming ensued. Japhia, your level of understanding about these topics is considerably lower than I assumed it to be when the thread was started. I am not going to spend more time responding as I believe it to be a lost cause, and I don't think you actually understand my arguments at all.

 

[Japhia888]

On the vacuum fluctuations, I actually agree that physicists are a bit misleading when they say 'nothing' and are actually talking about this bubbling quantum foam. But if it is the case that in a vacuum these fluctuations occur, can there actually be a state of no-thing? It was actually my understanding that quantum fluctuations could occur without space-time but I suppose the physicists you cite would know better than I would. In any case it doesn't matter because all you asked for was a better explanation than theism.

Even if I have to assert the existence of vacuum fluctuations (which I'm not convinced I have to but let's say I accept your previous arguments) it's still a better explanation than asserting a god. First, there is evidence that vacuum fluctuation exist. Second, Krauss' explanation is very parsimonious in that it could have been proven false at many points, indeed he mentioned several experiments and calculation where it appeared to be falsified until further information was gathered, no experiment will ever be able to falsify the god hypothesis. Third, it shows high concordance with all known information on physics, unlike the supernatural agents of theism. Fourth, it is able to explain the origin of the universe which shows it's explanatory scope. Compared to asserting theism, asserting the existence of vacuum fluctuations is a better explanation hands down.

I don't think its a good explanation.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/quantum-fluctuations-t65.htm

Vacuum Fluctuation Models did not outlive the decade of the 1980s. Not only were there theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, but these models faced a deep internal incoherence.{31} According to such models, it is impossible to specify precisely when and where a fluctuation will occur in the primordial vacuum which will then grow into a universe. Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one. About the only way to avert the problem would be to postulate an expansion of the primordial vacuum itself; but then we are right back to the absolute origin implied by the Standard Model. According to Isham this problem proved to be "fairly lethal" to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were "jettisoned twenty years ago" and "nothing much" has been done with them since.

On the idea that DNA needs proteins and proteins need DNA, again I agree that is why the RNA world is proposed. RNA can form their own riboozymes so proteins would not be needed in the early stages of life and some ribozymes can make partial copies of themselves removing the need for polymerases. It is true that ribozymes have not been shown to fully copy themselves so there is still more work to do in this area. I think the only reason the Miller-Urey experiments are so widely used is that they are so famous. There is much better, more modern research which either confirms or shows other ways to get the organic molecules they produced. Early proto-cells would not have been as complex as modern bacterial cells and probably originated from even simpler chemistry. To pretend otherwise is just to strawman what scientists are saying about abiogenesis. And as I said last time, fine-tuning does not present itself as a problem to me. Stars fuse lighter elements and form heavier elements, one of which is carbon. When the star explodes these heavier elements are sprayed out into space. The process is fairly easy to grasp.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/rna-and-the-origin-of-life-t106.htm

RNA first (RNA world)

"the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life"

"Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. " It is an inept molecule," he explains, "especially when compared with proteins." Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who has probably done more research exploring the RNA-world scenario than any other scientist, concurs with Joyce. Experiments simulating the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life, Orgel says. "You have to get an awful lot of things right and nothing wrong," he adds." (Horgan, John [science writer], "In The Beginning ...," Scientific American, February 1991, p.103. Elipses in original).

"not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date"

"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences." (Dover, Gabriel [Professor of Genetics, University of Leicester], "Looping the evolutionary loop," Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Oxford University Press: 1999, in Nature, 399, 20 May 1999, pp.217-218)

"tthe RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved"

"Nevertheless, despite the fact that most scientists working in this field accept the validity of the idea, the RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved. For one thing, in almost 20 years only seven types of natural ribozymes have been discovered: two remove introns (parts of RNA that don't code for proteins) from themselves; four cut themselves in two; and one trims off the end of an RNA precursor." (Evans J., "It's alive - isn't it?" Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 2000, pp.44-47. http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2000/evans_may00.htm).

On evolution, the only distinction between micro and macro evolution is that macro occurs over long time spans. So if you accept micro-evolution, you accept evolution - congratulations.

No, i don't. Neo-darwinists have failed so far to present consistent evidence to back up this claim.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#macroismic

Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of "micro-evolution"!

Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of "elementary" sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.

A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.

In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the "function" of the software.

Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.

I'm going to restate my comment on fine-tuning with a change: On fine tuning: it doesn't surprise me the environment in which life arose can support life. I don't see a fine tuning problem. If you are asking where the physical constants came from I would say most of them had to have their particular value and, of those that could vary, they have their values by pure chance.

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, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right.

All these could vary. But they are all just right. You need a BIG leap of faith..........

Common ancestry has been proven by DNA evidence. You take a conserved region of DNA from many different organisms and build a parsimonious tree. The results look like this

Ok. Please show the proofs.

 

[australopithecus]

Really ? Why then so many physicists have aknowledged the finetuning of these constants without hesitation, or doubt ?

Out of interest, if I checked all of those sources you cited exactly what percentage would be quote mines? Because telling us would save time.

 

[Japhia888]

The best explanation is certainly the one, that comes closest to the truth. Which has the best support through science, philosophy, and religion.
I asked for a metric, you continue to fail to present a metric, and continue to use vague language with unfastened goalposts (you changed "best explanation" to "closest to the truth" and "best supported", these are just as vague and ambiguous). Nail those goalposts to the ground or... hmm... well: or fuck off.

I will not play bullshit moving-the-goal-posts rhetorical games, and there's a very hefty chance that playing such (almost always dishonest) games will lead to banning. This is not yet an "official forum mod warning"; consider it an informal warning from a forum mod that the path you're heading down is not good.

There is no easy answer to your question. And your threat to bann me, and unwillingness to understand this, just shows that you don't grasp this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Since God (of the kind to which the proofs/arguments relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object, it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question.

One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other.

In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of "elementary" sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.

A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.

In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations

You mean like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming ?

Define "new." Nylonase did not exist in nature, how is it not a "new functional protein? "

All these could vary. But they are all just right. You need a BIG leap of faith..........

Or a really big universe with lots of stars orbited by planets. And some of these are gibberish. You think life couldn't exist if there were more earthquakes or volcanoes? Really?

 

[Japhia888]

It is clear to me from your responses that you really do not have even a basic understanding of experimental techniques and uncertainty.

I don't pretend to have a comprehensive understanding of every issue raised. When issues are raised, which i don't understand, you do the job i am looking for. That is the moment i can learn, make a research on the field, and form my opinion.

We have already established that there is no evidence that these constants can vary within our own universe.

There are constants, which in fact, it is understandable, that we might be unsure, if they can vary, or not. But how for example the cosmological constant ?
Why could the expansion rate of the universe not be different, than it actually is ? I don't see any reason to believe, that constant could not be different.
Its the same as to say : A airplane needs to have a certain velocity to fly. Could it be possible, not to reach the needed velocity to start to fly ? of course , this could be.
Same with the cosmological constant. There is no physical need, it to be and to have the rate it has.

Then it makes sense that there must be a lot of other universe out there that have other fundamental constants. Then, are we surprised that we exists in a universe in which we are capable of existing?Or maybe there are not lot's of other universes in existence simultaneously, but rather the universe goes through cycles, with different constants in each iteration. Again, are we surprised to exist in one of the iterations in which we are capable of existing? What you want to do is postulate that these constants can vary, BUT the universe only ever existed and will only ever exist in the form it is in now. Then, in what sense do these constants vary? They only exist as they are in our current universe. I think there are major logical problems with our argument in general. How does god fit in to any of this again?

the multiverse , and the cyclic model, are the two most mentioned hypotheses, atheists mention. Both fail in my view, based on various aspects.

The Multiverse :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/multiverse-a-valid-hypotheses-t20.htm

The most popular explanation and the one that appeals to Dawkins, is the 'multiverse'. The idea here is that, unbeknown to us, there are other universes, all slightly different, so that it becomes more likely that in that number, a universe like ours might exist. Davies wrote, "The multiverse theory seeks to replace the appearance of design by the hand of chance."[9] I have read some accounts that leave one to believe that a relatively small number of other universes would significantly alter the probabilities. That however is clearly not the case.

How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500. It might help to see that number written out. It is 1 with 500 zeroes after it.

Here goes: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Multiple universes would explain the fine-tuning of our universe, but a fine-tuned "universe generator" for the vast ensemble of multiple universes is still needed.

One can still explain the universe by randomness,this universe is one of a run of universes and big bangs, and ours happened to have the right characteristics for life. Or one can invoke the many-worlds theory: the universe is constantly splitting into many worlds, some of which will be right for life. But to invent myriads of other worlds in order to explain how this one came to be seems to show an addiction to randomness in one's explanatory scheme. It seems more economical (and remember that science often recommends simplicity in explanations) to posit that there were some constraints on the only universe we know that made it right for life.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/big-bang-precisely-planned/

One of the more common explanations seems to be "There was an infinite number of universes, so it was inevitable that things would have turned out right in at least one of them."
The "infinite universes" theory is truly an amazing theory. Just think about it, if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible"¦ It's actually happened!
It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There's a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn't get cement shoes; instead he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There's even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities! I might sound like I'm joking, but actually I'm dead serious. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

A cyclic Universe :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/a-cyclic-oscillationg-model-of-the-universe-possible-t119.htm

The oscillating model appears to be physically impossible. For all the talk about such models, the fact seems to be that they are only theoretically, but not physically possible. As the late Professor Tinsley of Yale explains, in oscillating models "even though the mathematics say that the universe oscillates, there is no known physics to reverse the collapse and bounce back to a new expansion. The physics seems to say that those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, then end."[22] In order for the oscillating model to be correct, it would seem that the known laws of physics would have to be revised. (ii) The oscillating model seems to be observationally untenable. Two facts of observational astronomy appear to run contrary to the oscillating model. First, the observed homogeneity of matter distribution throughout the universe seems unaccountable on an oscillating model. During the contraction phase of such a model, black holes begin to gobble up surrounding matter, resulting in an inhomogeneous distribution of matter. But there is no known mechanism to "iron out" these inhomogeneities during the ensuing expansion phase. Thus, the homogeneity of matter observed throughout the universe would remain unexplained. Second, the density of the universe appears to be insufficient for the re-contraction of the universe. For the oscillating model to be even possible, it is necessary that the universe be sufficiently dense such that gravity can overcome the force of the expansion and pull the universe back together again. However, according to the best estimates, if one takes into account both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos) as well as any possible contribution of neutrino particles to total mass, the universe is still only about one-half that needed for re-contraction

 

[australopithecus]

How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500. It might help to see that number written out. It is 1 with 500 zeroes after it.

Here goes: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Evidence? Can you point to the 1x10^500 other universes or provide support for the claim they're needed for the probability that our universe to be the way it it? Oh, and the forum you keep linking to? Not evidence.

 

[Japhia888]

Define "new." Nylonase did not exist in nature, how is it not a "new functional protein? "

I suggest you read following homepage, if you want to understand, why you don't have a consistent argument on hand :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/

You think life couldn't exist if there were more earthquakes or volcanoes? Really?

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

Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place

BENEFIT FOR LIFE IN EARTHQUAKES

Earthquakes are a byproduct of plate tectonics, a theory in geology developed in recent years for explaining motions near the surface of the Earth. One of the benefits from plate tectonics is that Earth maintains the right levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere to compensate for the Sun's increasing luminosity. This is accomplished by what is called the carbonate-silicate cycle. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere through weathering. The weathered products are eventually drawn into the Earth's interior via plate tectonics. Processes inside the Earth's interior release the CO2 back into the atmosphere via volcanoes. While all aspects of this mechanism are not yet fully understood, it has been instrumental in providing a stable environment for life on the Earth for billions of years.

 

[Japhia888]

Evidence? Can you point to the 1x10^500 other universes or provide support for the claim they're needed for the probability that our universe to be the way it it? Oh, and the forum you keep linking to? Not evidence.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/m-theory-brane-theory-t222.htm

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.

It's about 10^109! (10-to-the-109-factorial). (Oops. Obviously not.)

So rather than asking "how do we manipulate the mathematics to choose the one vacuum that represents our universe?" string theoriests like Susskind are saying, all these vacuums are allowed and all describe possible universes. In one or two of them the photon mass is zero and the electron has a mass of 0.511 MeV (and...), but in others the graviton is massive and quarks can be light-years apart and atoms can't even form and nothing is the way it seems here. And in still others..., well, you get the picture, times 10^500.

 

[borrofburi]

It's not about the numbers being right, it's about them being righter than they were before.

Reminds me of this:

 

[australopithecus]

Oh, and the forum you keep linking to? Not evidence.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/m-theory-brane-theory-t222.htm

:facepalm:

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.

The problem is that string theory has yet to be experimentally varified. Sting theory can allow for a universe create by unicorns sneezing, but until there's evidence then asserting something based on that wont get you very far. The fact remains the same as when addressing Lane Craigs claims on probability. We only have a sample set of one, one universe so the probability of the laws in that universe being the way they are is 1:1 and asigning arbitrary probabilities after the fact is massively foolish. I'm not saying a multiverse doesn't exist, but even if it did the numbers are irrelevant, any one of those 1x10^500 universes could be similar or exactly the same as ours. Until you can test this however it affects or informs nothing.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I suggest you read following homepage, if you want to understand, why you don't have a consistent argument on hand :

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolutio ... nt-design/

Lol, Dembski. So you're suggesting god pre-encoded bacteria with the ability to mutate a specific gene to be able to digest a specific polymer that wouldn't exist for billions of years after life began? :lol: But seriously, he thought that far ahead for bacteria and didn't think to make us immune to HIV :x ?

You said volcanic activity had to be just right. "Needing volcanoes" isn't the same as "needing the precise number of volcanoes we have." Volcanoes and tectonic activity are also not unique to Earth. Titan probably has both, is it finely tuned for life?

 

[borrofburi]

I asked for a metric, you continue to fail to present a metric, and continue to use vague language with unfastened goalposts (you changed "best explanation" to "closest to the truth" and "best supported", these are just as vague and ambiguous). Nail those goalposts to the ground or... hmm... well: or fuck off.

I will not play bullshit moving-the-goal-posts rhetorical games, and there's a very hefty chance that playing such (almost always dishonest) games will lead to banning. This is not yet an "official forum mod warning"; consider it an informal warning from a forum mod that the path you're heading down is not good.

There is no easy answer to your question. And your threat to bann me, and unwillingness to understand this, just shows that you don't grasp this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

Since God (of the kind to which the proofs/arguments relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object, it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question.

One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other.

In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other.

Oh I fully understand it's difficult, but I also understand that without a definition you can play rhetorical games and never actually address anything in some vain seeking of "points" or "win at any cost" with various debating tricks; and I also understand that people who purposefully fail to define what they're saying are not here to rationally discuss things, but to show off their intellect or gain feelings of self superiority and wonder if perhaps it'd simply be better for all of us if I gave you one of the ultimate self-superiority assets: martyrdom.

But fine, I'll bite, let's see where this goes...

 

[Sparky]

To give you another perspective on why I think your proposal that "God did it" is not a "better" explanation I pose this analogy.

It is 2000 years ago and you and I live in Rome. There is a lightening storm. You wander over to me after the storm and say "Wow, Zeus must be really angry. He threw a lot of lightening bolts today!" I then say "I don't believe that a God cast those lightening bolts." You then proceed to ask "Oh yeah. Well can you provide a BETTER explanation? You can't can you?" To which I say "I don't know what causes lightening" and you proclaim victory.

The problem is that you provide absolutely no evidence for your explanation. Sure, I can't disprove it but you first have to offer evidence in the first place to support your claim. With reference to your 'God created the Universe' explanation, pointing out flaws in the scientific hypotheses and pointing to "fine-tuning" (fine-tuning is in the eye of the beholder and is thus subjective) are not forms of objective evidence. You are yet to provide us with a valid explanation.

Also, 2000 years later and explanations for lightening don't require an angry God sitting in the clouds. Why is this?Well, I (in the analogy) couldn't provide an explanation for the phenomenon at all but I may have had hypotheses about much more basic things that I could test and find evidence to back them up with. It is because we started by making these incremental guesses and disproving them or strengthening their validity via experiments and from this we were able to build upon our knowledge and understanding until we attained the models we have today. One of these models is the Theory of Electromagnetics which explains lightening, light and many other phenomena. Science seeks to give us models of the Universe that can predict outcomes so that we may continue checking the validity of our models when we discover or observe new phenomena.

 

[Pulsar]

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/m-theory-brane-theory-t222.htm

Interesting forum you keep referring to. 9 members, each of them made about 20 posts, except one guy, elshamah888 (or should I say Abdi?), which is of course you, who made no less than 1112. I guess you banned everyone else. It's quite amusing that the other members are accusing you of trolling on your own forum (link). And as is evident from this, you created your own forum after you've been banned from the whywontgodhealamputees forum. You've also been banned form the happyatheist forum, this time as user angelosergipe.

So what's your goal, buddy? Troll every atheist/science forum? A man needs a hobby, I guess.

 

[borrofburi]

First of all : What explanation are we looking for ? the explanation of the existence of the universe, and us.
Secondly : what possibilities are on the table?

i see only 3.

1. The universe had a absolute beginning, and God as a sentient personal being as its cause
2. The universe had a absolute beginning, but no cause. Absolutely nothing was the cause of the universe. It came to be from any thing.
3. The universe had no beginning. Its eternal. It had no beginning, and has no end. It exists since eternity in one form or the other.

If you have another possible explanation, please present it.

You're missing a bunch:
1a. The universe had a beginning, and god as a sentient asshole who felt like creating some beings to torture as its cause
1b. The universe had a beginning, and god as a sentient non-personal being made the universe and then went on to do something else
1c. The universe had a beginning, and some being of some sort as its cause, but labeling or understanding such a being is extremely difficult, or even impossible (especially at the level of our species progression)
1d. The universe had a beginning, and the flying spaghetti monster as its cause
1e. The universe had a beginning, and thor as its cause
1f. The universe had a beginning, and god as its cause; god had a beginning, and the flying spaghetti monster as its cause; the flying spaghetti monster had a beginning, and Zeus as its cause; Zeus had a beginning, and uranus as its cause; Uranus had a beginning, and vishnu as its cause...
1g. The universe had a beginning, and a divine personal being made the palak'ulong of planet xepsilon in his image, and started some random stocahstic process on some other planets in order to not waste all this vast and incredible space he made
1g sub a. The universe had a beginning, and a divine personal being made the palak'ulong of planet xepsilon in his image, but because god made a bunch of pretty stars in nice formations for them, the laws of physics he made specifically so that hte palak-ulong could live happened to kick-off abiogenesis on earth and resulted in the evolution of a lower level of sentient life forms that are also extremely egocentric and think the whole universe was made just for them
1h. The universe had a beginning, and a divine being was bored so he decided that it'd be entertaining to run a gigantic war simulation, so he made this gigantic space we call the universe and then put the thing on fast-forward for billions of years to see what the gigantic inter-species inter-planet wars would arise; unfortunately the divine being made a mistake and put a speed limit on the universe, and so went and made a different simulation which the divine being enjoys much more.
1j.... Ok you get the point, there are infinite possibilities of ways the universe could have begun. You claim yours is superior to all others, but I as someone who prefers "I don't know" to an unfounded or unsubstantiated claim need evidence to believe you.


Here's what we know: the universe exists, at least on some level or another. That's it; everything after that is a post-hoc rationalization (at least on origins and the like). Either the universe had a beginning, or it didn't; If the universe had a beginning, what caused that beginning? If a divine being caused that beginning, what caused the divine being? If we posit that the divine being always existed, why not simply posit that the universe always existed?

Or, let's take this a further level of abstraction: either something has always existed, or something came from nothing. Neither of these make a whole lot of sense, both of them are uncomfortable: how can something truly traverse an infinity of time? Or, how can something come from nothing?

If you are not made uncomfortable by the simple fact that either something has always existed or something came from nothing then I do not think you have really comprehended it or really thought about it. Something having always existed should make you very uncomfortable (ALWAYS, eternity/infinity is a fuck-long time, longer than we can even possibly imagine; think of how large a billion is, think of how incomprehensible that large of a number is to our brains, and then try to think even larger, and then larger than that; you can't do it, our brains are VERY VERY bad at comprehending large numbers, let alone even larger numbers; once you get a very large number comprehended, remember that infinity is MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than that). If you are not made uncomfortable by something coming from nothing (and I know you are), then I do not think you have really comprehended it or really thought about it either. Yet these uncomfortable options are the only possibilities: either something (the universe, the laws of physics, energy, quantum foam, a divine sentient being) has ALWAYS existed (forever and ever... longer than you are capable of comprehending, and then even longer than that), or something (the universe, the laws of physics, energy, quantum foam, a divine sentient being) came from nothing (absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, no space, no gravity, no energy, no laws of physics, no quantum foam); those are the ONLY possibilities, that is the true dichotomy.

Now, you posit god as a solution: why? Adding god is no solution so far as I can see. Either god came from nothing, or god has always existed: the problem still exists. Moreover you're adding a level of abstraction that is entirely unnecessary and unjustified (justification mostly coming from being necessary or having supporting evidence (evidence being fairly broad here, but mostly being based on predictive power, not post-hoc rationalizations)). When I apply occam's razor to the situation, the lack-of-solution of god must be dropped in favor of the universe (or laws of physics, or energy, or one of the many things that we can easily demonstrate do "exist") having always existed (though with energy: not necessarily in this form) or having come from nothing; as such god simply becomes superfluous. Or hell, even "I don't know" is a better option (and in my opinion the best option) than an unfounded unjustified unhelpful non-predictive idea.

P.S. please do not divide up the paragraphs in my post (I'd prefer you don't divide up the post at all really, it is very simple to either (1) lose track of the whole and accidentally get caught up in minutiae or (2) purposefully obfuscate the whole by means of minutiae).

 

[Japhia888]

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/m-theory-brane-theory-t222.htm

Interesting forum you keep referring to. 9 members, each of them made about 20 posts, except one guy, elshamah888 (or should I say Abdi?), which is of course you, who made no less than 1112. I guess you banned everyone else. It's quite amusing that the other members are accusing you of trolling on your own forum (link). And as is evident from this, you created your own forum after you've been banned from the whywontgodhealamputees forum. You've also been banned form the happyatheist forum, this time as user angelosergipe.

So what's your goal, buddy? Troll every atheist/science forum? A man needs a hobby, I guess.

first of all :

heaven forum is my personal virtual library. It just serves me to catalogize information, so i have it easily on hand, when i need it.
Secondly, everyone is free to register, and post. I have not even deleted the posts of the ones, that made stupid comments over there, and where actually trolling.
Third : i post for years over the most various forums, not only atheist forums, but of all kind, also in different languages. English is not my native language. You will find a almost complete list of all forums, where i posted in the past, here :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/forums-about-atheism-id-te-etc-f12/english-forums-where-i-posted-in-the-past-t11.htm

what are my goals ? to show why i believe, theism is the most rational world view, and specially christian theism. And to clarify further : It is NOT my goal to " try " to convert people . That is each ones personal and own decision. Further more, debates with atheists do strenght my faith and knowledge, since frequently new questions are made, and new answers are requested . That is a nice learn process, i am going through, and i have a lot of fun doing so.