Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Is a atheist more rational than a theis ?

 Since the name of this forum is rational response squad, my question is :

 

why do you think it is more rational to believe, no God exists, than the oposit. ?

I ask this in face of following facts :

1. According to science, the universe had a beginning. Therefor, it had a cause.

2. The universe is extremely fine tuned. If the four natural forces would differ just a fraction, the cosmos would not have surged, and therefor no life. The probability number, that this universe surged by chance, is so small, that it can be discarted. At this point, the " God of the gaps " argument does not apply, since the constants are known. Why should it be more rational to believe, the universe arised by chance thow ?

3. Science has no answer how life arose from unanimated matter. Even the simplest unicellular being is so complex, that even the most complex machine invented by man is like a toy. DNA is a code, and code can come only from a mind. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:People

butterbattle wrote:
People must have fathers; therefore, universes must have intelligent designers? Fail. Try again.

angelobrazil wrote:
explain : why does it fail ? your answer was not a answer.

Why? Because it's a simple non sequitur. Because the analogy doesn't make any ****ing sense. A requires B; therefore, C requires D? 

You can't figure out what's wrong with that? 

angelobrazil wrote:
Actually, even Richard Dawkins admits Intelligent Design, isn't that amazing ?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8&feature=related

We've already gone over this several times as well. Are you reading my responses? He says IF life on Earth was designed, the best explanation would be extraterrestrials, not a supernatural intelligence. Furthermore, he says that the ultimate origin of life would still need to be explained by abiogenesis. So, Richard Dawkins does NOT admit to intelligent design. He even wrote in his book, "The God Delusion," that he gets frustrated by Creationists who constantly quote mine what he says, including that clip.  

Also, whether Richard Dawkins admits to intelligent design or not doesn't change my stance on the origin of life. You know why?Because it's just an appeal to authority. Because I don't worship Richard Dawkins!  

angelobrazil wrote:
onces again you didn't answer my question. You said evolution of the universe had to be a gradual one. And i ask you again : Why ?

Well, I'm pretty I said it was "most likely" a gradual process, not that it "had to be." Nevertheless, I hold that stance because that's how the world usually works. It doesn't make any sense for the universe to simply pop into existence in its current form.  

angelobrazil wrote:
if these forces operate by themself, why or what does regulate the process, so that it had to be gradually ?

Hahaha!

No, see, "If these forces operate by themselves," then they don't need an "arbiter" to "regulate" them. They operate by themselves. Why do you assume they need someone to regulate them.

butterbattle wrote:
Another loaded question. It doesn't have to be "directed" to be gradual. It just IS natural. Nobody "opens" the "floodgates of heaven" to "allow" rain to pour down from the sky. It just happens.

angelobrazil wrote:
wait a minute. you said its gradual, not its natural. So why would it have to be gradual ? what determined it had to be gradual ?

Oops, sorry, I got the two words mixed up. I meant to say, "It doesn't have to be directed to be gradual. It just IS gradual." 

But anyways, it looks like you still don't get it. Okay, angelobrazil, let me try a different approach. I think I already know what your response is going to be, but let me ask you these questions. Why did it rain today? Who or what determined that it had to rain? 

angelobrazil wrote:
once again. The universe is fine tuned. We find order of the highest degree.

Yep. And, once again, you have to provide evidence. We've gone over this several times. 

angelobrazil wrote:
It appears to be designed.

It '"appears" to be designed' is subjective and a naked assertion.

angelobrazil wrote:
So why is a designer not the best explanation ?

We've gone over this too. In fact, you must have already gone over this exact point dozens of times in this thread. I specifically wrote several paragraphs describing my position on this, and you still haven't addressed them. You might as well just go back and read it. 

angelobrazil wrote:
have you seen a atomic explosion for example be ordered ? or is it always chaotic ? throw thousand stones to the floor. Will you find them in a chaotic situation on the floor, or highly ordered ? Throw them a trillion times on the floor. how many times do you think they will arrive ordered ?

Okay, obviously, we've opened up another can of worms. We need to define "chaotic" and "ordered." 

Also, if you want to argue with examples, then how about snowflakes and animals? 

angelobrazil wrote:
Its up to you to show this other perspective, since it is you to propose it. Up to now, i really can't. But there might be things i don't know yet...( i don't know a lot of things ) so please explain.

I'm sorry. I really don't understand what you're looking for. If you want to understand biology, there's a lot of resources available, even just from links that have been posted throughout this thread.

butterbattle wrote:
Nobody "guarantees" that evolution is gradual process.

angelobrazil wrote:
that was your assertion.

No, no, no, my assertion is that evolution is a gradual process. I did not assert that there is an "intelligent force" which "makes it" gradual. I was pointing out the premise hidden in your question.

angelobrazil wrote:
so how do you know ? we talk btw. about the evolution of the universe....

The "theory of evolution" is the theory describing the evolution of life, NOT the universe. Whenever a scientist mentions the "theory of evolution," they're talking about the evolution of life. Whenever I mention evolution, I'm also talking about the evolution of life on Earth, unless stated otherwise. 

So...we were talking about different things. Sigh...

angelobrazil wrote:
i don't think so. But your arguments make me wonder what you actually understand about the assertions you make.

Since you didn't answer the question, I'll ask it again. What did you want to know about the Cambrian explosion?

angelobrazil wrote:
again. you make a assertion, but give no explanation. Please explain why nature, at least the vast majority of it, is not random and does not need a designer.

*sob* *cry* I wish this conversation didn't have to be so difficult.

When you ask "why" isn't it random, it doesn't make any sense, because it sounds like you're asking nature to inform you about its intent. So what you're really asking is "how" do know it's not random and doesn't need a designer, not "why," right? 

We know it doesn't need a designer because we already understand the processes involved, and there is no design in the process. We know why it rains. We know how why there are earthquakes. We know why we get sick. We understand the diversity of life on Earth. We understand why a ball drops back down when we throw it up in the air. 

Here is a thread that Kevin started. Some of his explanations are kind of off, but it basically reflects what I'm trying to say.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16863

We don't need God to answer our questions because most of the perplexing questions that humans have pondered throughout our history have already been answered. We know it's not random because we already know how it works, and it works in a way that's....well....not random.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 

tere are people who study this, that don't take it as mere chance, but want to know why and how and can actually have answers to those questions instead of wow must be chance or god, both are just mere ignorant statements as one fails to observe the causes and the other is not an answer to anything, on the contrary it is an impossible proposition as it the god mentioned in your case is no improbable, but impossible.

 

 the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220. that is simply a fact. If you think chance is a better explanation   for the physical constants of the universe , than shall it be. For me, its utmost irrational. Would you bet a dime on that probability ?

 

The Temperature of the Earth and Carbon-Based Life:
p://thecw.com/2009/09/17/the-fine-tuning-in-the-univers
The existence of carbon, the basis of all life, depends on the temperature remaining within specific limits. Carbon is an essential substance for organic molecules such as amino-acid, nucleic acid and protein: These constitute the basis of life. For that reason, life can only be carbon-based. Given this, the existing temperature needs to be no lower than -20 degrees and no higher than 1200 Celsius (2480 F). These are just the temperature limits on Earth.

 

Another group of variables that are fascinating is that the atoms that make up the bulk of life have certain qualities that, again, are not obvious nor required. Some, indeed, are quite subtle.

One of these is carbon, which is the mainstay of biological processes. Carbon is the sixth atom in size, it has six protons, and six electrons–two in an inner orbit and four in its outer orbit, which makes it possible to connect with up to four other atoms at a time. This is near the maximum of chemical connections, and so carbon is unique among the ninety-two elements in its capacity to create complex molecules.

So we need lots of carbon for life to exist, and carbon is created in the bowels of the stars. But it requires a peculiar chain of fusion events, beyond the fusion of hydrogen into helium, which is the source of energy that fuels hydrogen bombs and keeps the stars as hot as they are. But in addition to being a source of heat and light, the cores of stars have the pressure, due to the gravitational force of all that matter, and the heat due to the power of the fusion reaction, to be an "alchemical crucible," a high-pressure chamber in which even larger atoms can be created, and so they are.

The bigger the atom, though, the hotter and higher pressure it needs to be, so that the larger atoms only happen in the cores of very large stars, much larger than our sun, and even then, only when they are undergoing the final phases of their own collapse, called the "super-nova," when they burn–if you can imagine this–and you can't–none of us really can–millions of times hotter than the sun! Silicon based life is not possible :  A feature of carbon chemistry is that many of its compounds can take right and left forms, and it is this handedness, or chirality, that gives enzymes their ability to recognize and regulate a huge variety of processes in the body. Silicon's failure to give rise to many compounds that display handedness makes it hard to see how it could serve as the basis for the many interconnected chains of reactions needed to support life. 

 

Thanks for proving mellenstad right, you completely ignored the links. Even more so you ignored the information about the starts and the different amount of carbon being put up by various stars. Of course there are also heavy metal rich stars and carbon rich stars, but hey lets ignore the facts, your grasping at straws, you said that science did not have any possible answers, yet again it shows that they do have possible answers and are working towards understanding they hows and whys. At this point angelo, your ignorance is far to great in this topic, and all you do is just ignore all the evidence and facts and keep repeating how improbable it is that this all has happened, and keep ignoring the fact that improbable is not impossible. Unlike your god which is impossible.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Sorry,

angelobrazil wrote:
Sorry, but i repeated several times : i have not the goal to prove God. God's existence cannot be proved/disproved.

You are a deceitful liar as most theist proselytizers have to be. Are you so deluded you cant even recognize yourself? Do you think people are so stupid that they cannot see that your opening post is an argument for a god?


In your opening post you CLEARLY ask why dont atheists think there's a god and you CLEARLY claim that the universe is fine tuned meaning there is a "tuner" and you CLEARLY claim DNA is a code designed by a mind. Whose mind? The mind of the thing you call god, of course.


Now stop your fucking lying bullshit. You really are beginning to look like a total fool. But, yeah, if you think looking like a fool is the price you have to pay to proselytize, then you are twice the fool.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote: Well,

butterbattle wrote:
Well, I'm pretty I said it was "most likely" a gradual process, not that it "had to be."

 

you said : but it would be a determined, gradual process, just like natural selection is a determined, gradual process. based on that i made my question. So : why would it be a determined, gradual process ?

 

butterbattle wrote:
Nevertheless, I hold that stance because that's how the world usually works. It doesn't make any sense for the universe to simply pop into existence in its current form.

 

but : does it makes sense to say that nothing started the BigBang, which actually is against all current know natural laws? Where did all the power comer from to start that process? why and how was it there, why did it exist at the beginning of the universe ? You can say : " oh, i don't know ". So there we have been already. That's why i say : God is the better explanation.....

 

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/fine_tuned.htm

 

another positive evidence for cosmological intelligent design is the simplicity and beauty of the physics equations themselves. Einstein once said: "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." This simplicity and comprehensibility of physical laws suggests that the universe is more than just a mere fluke of nature, since we would not expect sheer luck to produce mathematically elegant and simple laws. From the current amount of scientific evidence, we can reliably infer that cosmological intelligent design is the most rational explanation for fine-tuning in the universe. Cosmologists like paul davies admit the elegance and order in the universe :

 

Paul Davies on an Ultimate Explanation

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tB1jppI3fo&feature=related

 

butterbattle wrote:
Hahaha! No, see, "If these forces operate by themselves," then they don't need an "arbiter" to "regulate" them. They operate by themselves. Why do you assume they need someone to regulate them.

 

Well, its up to YOU to explain that, since you made the assertion that evolution is constant. Again : why is it not chaotic ?

 

butterbattle wrote:
Oops, sorry, I got the two words mixed up. I meant to say, "It doesn't have to be directed to be gradual. It just IS gradual." But anyways, it looks like you still don't get it. Okay, angelobrazil, let me try a different approach. I think I already know what your response is going to be, but let me ask you these questions. Why did it rain today? Who or what determined that it had to rain?

 

Rain isn't a gradual process. You said the evolution of the universe is a gradual process. So my question again : why ?

 

angelobrazil wrote:
once again. The universe is fine tuned. We find order of the highest degree.
butterbattle wrote:
Yep. And, once again, you have to provide evidence. We've gone over this several times.

 

exact. through all the thread, i have provided the evidence. Keep ignoring ? but here go some scientific papers : Scientific papers on the cosmological constants :

 

DO LENSING STATISTICS RULE OUT A COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT?

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/CY97.pdf

 

How physically plausible is the cosmological constant?

 

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/phys.html

 

Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood, the fact remains that the vacuum energy does exist. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a physically plausible part of modern cosmology. Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013v3.pdf

 

Some unknown agent initially started the inflaton high up on its potential, and the rest is history.

 

Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6750/abs/401252a0.html

 

Recent observations1, 2 of high-redshift supernovae seem to suggest that the global geometry of the Universe may be affected by a 'cosmological constant', which acts to accelerate the expansion rate with time.

 

butterbattle wrote:
It appears to be designed.

It '"appears" to be designed' is subjective and a naked assertion.

 

No. Its based on statements of wellknown cosmologists, based on their scientific findings.

 

http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=quotes

 

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist) “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

 

George Ellis (British astrophysicist) “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

 

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

 

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

 

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer) “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

 

George Greenstein (astronomer) “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

 

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

 

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural&rsquoEye-wink plan.”

 

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author) “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

 

Tony Rothman (physicist) “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

 

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

 

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist) “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? … Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”

 

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician) “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

 

Ed Harrison (cosmologist) “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

 

Edward Milne (British cosmologist) “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

 

Barry Parker (cosmologist) “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

 

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

 

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

 

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (computational quantum chemist) “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

 

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

 

butterbattle wrote:
have you seen a atomic explosion for example be ordered ? or is it always chaotic ? throw thousand stones to the floor. Will you find them in a chaotic situation on the floor, or highly ordered ? Throw them a trillion times on the floor. how many times do you think they will arrive ordered ?

 

Okay, obviously, we've opened up another can of worms. We need to define "chaotic" and "ordered." Also, if you want to argue with examples, then how about snowflakes and animals?

 

Why do we not stick a little bit more on my question. Why do you think, the BigBang happend orderly, finely tuned to aloud the universe not to crunch ? I have wrote about how finely tuned the inflation of the BigBang had to be :

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/bigbang-inflation-requires-fine-tuning-t151.htm

 

Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

 

butterbattle wrote:
No, no, no, my assertion is that evolution is a gradual process. I did not assert that there is an "intelligent force" which "makes it" gradual. I was pointing out the premise hidden in your question.

 

Well, lets go back to your inicial statement : you said you thought the evolution of the universe was gradual. Please explain why you think it was. What made it be gradual ? why not chaotic ?

 

angelobrazil wrote:
so how do you know ? we talk btw. about the evolution of the universe.... The "theory of evolution" is the theory describing the evolution of life, NOT the universe.

 

Correct. But we are talking about the evolution of the universe. Or do you think the universe didn't go through a evolutionary process ?

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/5a.html

 

butterbattle wrote:
Whenever a scientist mentions the "theory of evolution," they're talking about the evolution of life. Whenever I mention evolution, I'm also talking about the evolution of life on Earth, unless stated otherwise. So...we were talking about different things. Sigh...

 

yes. as stated above.

 

butterbattle wrote:
We know it doesn't need a designer because we already understand the processes involved, and there is no design in the process.

 

then it seems you know more than astrophysicist's ? you then might explain the processes involved....

 

butterbattle wrote:
We know why it rains. We know how why there are earthquakes. We know why we get sick. We understand the diversity of life on Earth. We understand why a ball drops back down when we throw it up in the air. Here is a thread that Kevin started. Some of his explanations are kind of off, but it basically reflects what I'm trying to say.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16863 We don't need God to answer our questions because most of the perplexing questions that humans have pondered throughout our history have already been answered. We know it's not random because we already know how it works, and it works in a way that's....well....not random.

your examples do not have anything to do with the matter we are talking about.

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:Fred

angelobrazil wrote:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist) “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

 

George Ellis (British astrophysicist) “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

 

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

 

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

 

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer) “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

 

George Greenstein (astronomer) “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

 

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

 

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural&rsquoEye-wink plan.”

 

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author) “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

 

Tony Rothman (physicist) “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

 

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

 

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist) “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? … Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”

 

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician) “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

 

Ed Harrison (cosmologist) “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

 

Edward Milne (British cosmologist) “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

 

Barry Parker (cosmologist) “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

 

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

 

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

 

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (computational quantum chemist) “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

 

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

 

These are nothing but personal opinions and ad libbed statements. They have no proof nor evidence of any "god".

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Thanks

latincanuck wrote:

 

Thanks for proving mellenstad right, you completely ignored the links. Even more so you ignored the information about the starts and the different amount of carbon being put up by various stars. Of course there are also heavy metal rich stars and carbon rich stars, but hey lets ignore the facts, your grasping at straws, you said that science did not have any possible answers, yet again it shows that they do have possible answers and are working towards understanding they hows and whys. At this point angelo, your ignorance is far to great in this topic, and all you do is just ignore all the evidence and facts and keep repeating how improbable it is that this all has happened, and keep ignoring the fact that improbable is not impossible. Unlike your god which is impossible.

 

Latincanuck : non of your quotes adresses the fine-tune question, so you actually do not take attention what it's all about :

if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

this is a unquestionable FACT. So you have three possibilities :

1. the fine-tuning is a physical necessity

2. the fine-tuning happened by chance ( than i would like to know if you would bet a hundred dollar bill on the chance of 10^220 , that you would win.

3. A external powerful entity finely tuned the constants to permit life.

I remain by my assertion. Number 3 is the most rational explanation. If not, please explain why you think the constants might be a physical necessity, or why luck is a better explanation.

 

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: These are

aiia wrote:

 

These are nothing but personal opinions and ad libbed statements. They have no proof nor evidence of any "god".

 

yes, correct. But these are not baseless conclusions and assertions. These are statements, made based on their scientific discoveries, therefor absolutely worth to be taken in consideration.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:aiia

angelobrazil wrote:

aiia wrote:

 

These are nothing but personal opinions and ad libbed statements. They have no proof nor evidence of any "god".

 

yes, correct. But these are not baseless conclusions and assertions.

exactly. they are personal opinions not science

Quote:
 These are statements, made based on their scientific discoveries, therefor absolutely worth to be taken in consideration.

No they are not based on science. They are opinions based on personal beliefs.

It illustrates psychological compartmentalization.

Also, these off-handed statements made in the PAST might not actually represent what they believe before and/or after they uttered them

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3652
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:    

angelobrazil wrote:

 

 

  Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

 

  

 

    Werner von Braun ?  Wasn't he the god-fearing Lutheran who designed the V-2 rocket used by the Nazi's in WW II ?

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

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: No they are not

aiia wrote:

 

No they are not based on science. They are opinions based on personal beliefs.

So so... And if their personal beliefs  are not based on scientific facts, they are based on what ? 

Since you seem to be a active atheist,  is your standpoint  not based also on personal beliefs ? 

So do you still assert there is no scientific evidence for a intelligent designer ? are the fine-tune constants no evidence ? then you might explain why physical necessity , or luck, is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. good luck.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:aiia

angelobrazil wrote:

aiia wrote:

 

No they are not based on science. They are opinions based on personal beliefs.

So so... And if their personal beliefs  are not based on scientific facts, they are based on what ? 

ummm...zing! It went right over your head didnt it.

Quote:
Since you seem to be a active atheist,  is your standpoint  not based also on personal beliefs ? 

What personal belief are you referring to? "God"? You have not presented any evidence of such a thing. All you've done is ask questions. Surely you're not suggesting that a question is an answer?

Quote:
So do you still assert there is no scientific evidence for a intelligent designer?

Yep

Quote:
are the fine-tune constants no evidence ?

What fine-tuned constants? So fucking what that there are constants. You have not, nor has anyone else, provided any evidence that constants are created by any intelligence.

Quote:
then you might explain why physical necessity , or luck, is a better explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. good luck.

It is the claimants' obligation to prove his/her case, not mine.

Thus far you have been refuted by several people and you refuse to acknowledge it

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Thus far you

aiia wrote:

 

Thus far you have been refuted by several people and you refuse to acknowledge it

 

 

I have been refuted because the participants of this thread prefere to stick their head into the sand, like a ostrich, instead to face and study the facts. If you want to educate yourself about what the fine-tune constants are, i suggest you take a little time to study the topic at my forum. Plenty of information there :

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

if you then think luck or physical need is still a better explanation for the fine tuning of our universe, than shall it be so. For me however its plain irrational to be satisfied with such a answer. It makes no sense at all. And i don't think you will accept that answer based on reason, but because you are not willing to give up your wish and pre-established position that there shall be no God. 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:aiia

angelobrazil wrote:

aiia wrote:

 

Thus far you have been refuted by several people and you refuse to acknowledge it

 

 

I have been refuted because the participants of this thread prefere to stick their head into the sand, like a ostrich, instead to face and study the facts. If you want to educate yourself about what the fine-tune constants are, i suggest you take a little time to study the topic at my forum. Plenty of information there :

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

if you then think luck or physical need is still a better explanation for the fine tuning of our universe, than shall it be so. For me however its plain irrational to be satisfied with such a answer. It makes no sense at all. And i don't think you will accept that answer based on reason, but because you are not willing to give up your wish and pre-established position that there shall be no God. 

 

Lol.  The universe 'looks' like it follows certain consistent behaviors.  That is all those scientists are saying.  Again, you make the logical leap that none of them make.  They say:

Universe bahaves in a specific way = that is interesting, let's investigate!

You say:

These scientists think it is interesting that the universe looks like it behaves in a specific way...I'll quote mine them to make it look like they are saying god is real and my dog really went to heaven!

 

You sir, are a brilliant scholar.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:aiia

angelobrazil wrote:

aiia wrote:

 

Thus far you have been refuted by several people and you refuse to acknowledge it

 

 

I have been refuted

Excellant! Then you do understand!

 

Quote:
If you want to educate yourself about what the fine-tune constants are, i suggest you take a little time to study the topic at my forum. Plenty of information there :

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

There is no education here. You claim constants are fine-tuned. But where's your proof? In order to prove a fine-tuned universe you have to PROVE THERE'S A CONSCIOUS FINE-TUNER! So prove it.

Quote:
if you then think luck or physical need is still a better explanation for the fine tuning of our universe, than shall it be so. For me however its plain irrational to be satisfied with such a answer.

It is not irrational to subscribe to physical precepts of the universe because the the universe is a physical thing.

 

Quote:
It makes no sense at all. And i don't think you will accept that answer based on reason, but because you are not willing to give up your wish and pre-established position that there shall be no God. 

It is not my "wish" that there is no god; it is that there is no evidence of god. You claim my position is "pre-established"? What the hell is that?

Your claim of god (the fine-tuner) is a presupposition.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

Latincanuck : non of your quotes adresses the fine-tune question, so you actually do not take attention what it's all about :

if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

this is a unquestionable FACT. So you have three possibilities :

1. the fine-tuning is a physical necessity

Yet the argument as a whole sure sounds nice about fine tuning until you start looking at all the details, yet all the problems you presented science either has A) got an answer for, B) already studying the possibilities, C) formatting the hypothesis with the given evidence for it's natural occurrance. NONE of these require god. Yet you keep on invoking god, and never EVER present a single piece of proper evidence (unlike the scientific evidence shown that usually has some form of evidence to back it up, even if it just mathematical) Besides who says the universal properties where chosen randomly? You do, like a few scientists have stated, even Hawkings, it could be that they have no other possibility, due to the energy, and elements presented at the beginning of this universe in those few moments, they had no other possibility but to have those constants. We don't know, and saying god did it doesn't answer it all, it just makes an even more questions and never answers anything.

Quote:

2. the fine-tuning happened by chance ( than i would like to know if you would bet a hundred dollar bill on the chance of 10^220 , that you would win.

Vs your impossible god, yes I will take those odds, because at least MY odds have a possibility of occurring your god doesn't even have that. 10^220 is far better than ZERO chance.

Quote:

3. A external powerful entity finely tuned the constants to permit life.

I remain by my assertion. Number 3 is the most rational explanation. If not, please explain why you think the constants might be a physical necessity, or why luck is a better explanation.

Present the proper evidence of such said deity, and the evidence that shows that such said deity exists that also refutes or debunks all of the scientific evidence to the contrary of your deity, next step, provide the evidence that YOUR SPECIFIC deity exists and is the only possibility, eliminating all other possibilities, and other gods and deities, and some form of scientific journal that has been peer reviewed, you know like much of the evidence I have given you including about the origin of carbon. With that said, your contradicting again, your entity is either all powerful or simple, all things need a creator, or they don't. Your deity isn't the exception to the rule of all the things you claim, on the contrary it has to follow some logical rules, even if it could exist, it would need a creator, otherwise it's an impossibility. Which is why science has such a far superior answer than god did it. Nothing that you have presented proves your god exists, or did anything. Nothing you have provided has debunked anything science has provided. Nothing that you have presented has overcome the odds of improbability, because in the end improbable is not impossible. I do not take the stance of chance, that is your position. Chance or god, however we see that everything occurs due to the properties of the elements, of the physical laws, of chemical reactions, etc, etc, etc and in the end the probability may look small, but it's not impossible. Your god however remains impossible.

 

 

 


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
   aiia wrote: There is

 

 

aiia wrote:

There is no education here. You claim constants are fine-tuned. But where's your proof?

there is no doubt about the fine-tuning of the universe amongst the scientific community. A few papers :

Scientific papers on the cosmological constants :

DO LENSING STATISTICS RULE OUT A COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT?

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/CY97.pdf

How physically plausible is the cosmological constant?

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/phys.html

Even though theoretical calculations of the cosmological constant are not fully understood, the fact remains that the vacuum energy does exist. Since gravity couples all forms of energy, the cosmological constant remains as a physically plausible part of modern cosmology.

Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013v3.pdf

Some unknown agent initially started the inflaton high up on its potential, and the rest is history.

Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v401/n6750/abs/401252a0.html

Recent observations1, 2 of high-redshift supernovae seem to suggest that the global geometry of the Universe may be affected by a 'cosmological constant', which acts to accelerate the expansion rate with time.

aiia wrote:

In order to prove a fine-tuned universe you have to PROVE THERE'S A CONSCIOUS FINE-TUNER! So prove it.

i don't have to prove it. I just show the evidence that hints to the fine-tuner. I don't understand your insistence of proofs, if nobody has proof of the existence/in-existence of God. The quest is just which is the best explanation for the natural world. For me its God as origin and creator. That's the reason i am here. To tell just that.

aiia wrote:

It is not irrational to subscribe to physical precepts of the universe because the the universe is a physical thing.

That's no explanation at all why the universe is finely tuned.If you want to be taken seriously, it would be very basic at least to take for granted what science does not question. The fine-tuning of the universe is not questioned by secular scientists. Actually, beside the ones already known, more and more are discovered.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:lets say

 

lets say the God of the bible would appear to you  and not leave any doubt that he is God allmighty, creator of the earth and the universe. He would just appear to offer you the chance to accept him as lord and saviour, to become his child , and make part of the family of God. Afterwards he would disappear again. His offer would mean you would have to leave your old life, without God, behind, and follow him, and do his will. But you could also continue to live your life without him, same as before. What decision would you make ? what would you choose ?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: aiia

angelobrazil wrote:
aiia wrote:
In order to prove a fine-tuned universe you have to PROVE THERE'S A CONSCIOUS FINE-TUNER! So prove it.
i don't have to prove it. I just show the evidence that hints to the fine-tuner. I don't understand your insistence of proofs, if nobody has proof of the existence/in-existence of God. The quest is just which is the best explanation for the natural world. For me its God as origin and creator. That's the reason i am here. To tell just that.

you have not shown any evidence of a "tuner" nor have you shown any evidence that the universe is tuned. 


Quote:
aiia wrote:
It is not irrational to subscribe to physical precepts of the universe because the the universe is a physical thing.
That's no explanation at all why the universe is finely tuned.

Again , you have not shown that the universe is tuned.

 

Quote:
If you want to be taken seriously, it would be very basic at least to take for granted what science does not question.

Taken seriously by you ? If that is your attitude you can kiss my ass.

Quote:
The fine-tuning of the universe is not questioned by secular scientists.

You are so full of shit

 

Quote:
Actually, beside the ones already known, more and more are discovered.

None of which points to a god so go fuck youself.

I getting sick of your dishonest shit on the forum.

No it wont be moved to trollville because all the atheists posted excellant rebuttals to your garbage

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Personally I am skeptic,

Personally I am skeptic, however if said evidence is proven to be true, I would accept the offer, however, the issue lies is there is NO EVIDENCE of your god at all. Not one tiny bit of compelling evidence with the exception of personal opinion. Not even your fine tune argument proves your god specifically exists. Would you change your views if science proves beyond any doubt (even though it already has done so in so many ways) that god doesn't exist? Or worse if another god, say Brahma, proves beyond any doubt to be the real god? Would you change religion? In the end all your playing with is WHAT IF, and what if, doesn't mean squat.

 

[edit] however I see that you have ignored all the problems you have presented regarding your god, with that said you have also ignored all the other possibilities for a fine tune universe, even is science doesn't agree 100 percent with multi-verse option, the bubble universe or various other theories/hypothesis, it is because they cannot be tested, much like your god. But that said they provide a far more logical and reasonable explanation than god did it. Especially a god with so much contradictions and impossibilities.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: so go fuck

aiia wrote:

 so go fuck youself.

I getting sick of your dishonest shit on the forum.

ok. i am gone. that's my last post at this forum. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
response for fine tuned universe

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900

people have worked on this argument and it always goes the same way, there are so many possibilities and we always dismiss any other possibility for life to form. In this tested model about 25 percent of the time stars formed long enough for life to emerge, however HOW life emerged is not proven because it's not taken into consideration. As we don't know the exact requirement for life to emerge. Or the endless possible chemical interactions for life to emerge with different elemental properties beyond carbon at this time. But go ahead and dismiss this, even though it does throw a wrench in your fine tune argument.

And another article

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23377/ with work done by scientists to figure out the numbers

and another article by a scientist and professor

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/cosmyth.pdf

this is why your argument for god is the only possible answer is based on ignorance, your dismiss all the other works and studies done by scientists. The moment they contradict your world view is the moment you start to ignore the possibilities that do not require god to be the creator.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote: lets

angelobrazil wrote:

 

lets say the God of the bible would appear to you  and not leave any doubt that he is God allmighty, creator of the earth and the universe. He would just appear to offer you the chance to accept him as lord and saviour, to become his child , and make part of the family of God. Afterwards he would disappear again. His offer would mean you would have to leave your old life, without God, behind, and follow him, and do his will. But you could also continue to live your life without him, same as before. What decision would you make ? what would you choose ?

 

If this creature could prove it was 'god', and offered me an eternity of bliss if I did some specific thing?  Sure.  But he would have to be damn convincing, and if 'it' just showed up then left I would have a hard time not thinking it was a hallucination.  I need more than a book of prophecy written by an ancient tribal society and some confusion about how the universe functions to drink the god kool-aid again.

 

angelobrazil wrote:

ok. i am gone. that's my last post at this forum.

 

Or just stop being dishonest.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
What a Surprise!

 Hey look, another possible explanation for the supposed fine tuning of the universe

Of course, you have insisted that any possible explanation other than your god is to be regarded as a 'fairy tale'* so I doubt you will actually be an honest person and look at this seriously, but hey, some of the more rational people in this thread might actually like to discuss this.

 

*And provided no reason for this to be the case other than because you said so, but hey what's a little burden of proof or consistency between friends?

Do you know what the Super Special Awesome part of this new idea is?  According to their hypothesis, this might actually have left detectible evidence in this iteration of the universe.  Given that you have stated that your god cannot be proven, and that the only 'evidence' you have provided is based on what you think is logic and not on actually testable data, this idea is already way above your god in terms of rationality.

Fun Times!

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice work Aiia

 

I really enjoyed that. I'm not the only one who gets mental when sumo wrestling christian 'logic'!

It's like a tango with the blob. The funny thing is that it becomes a war of attrition between sanity and not.

Why do theists have so much trouble recognising what constitutes tangible evidence? Almost every poster

on this thread asked for actual proof of the existence of the almighty and was ignored.

Tho' I was sorry I never got to ask Angelo where god came from given the fact it took such an awe inspiring beastie

to manufacture the clunky arsed shit that seems to be going on in the universe around us. So he can't have come from nowhere.

What would angelo have said? Am I the only one who ever ran head on into the christian argument that because god is alleged to be so complex

and amazing he must have always been there?  Does this even make sense to any smart people on the forum? Theist debaters use this as an

end game play to white wash everything I come up with from the indisputable fossil record, that starts simple and gets more complex,

to a total lack of evidence to support some one so supposedly amazing as jesus, who instead of being born in the time of multimedia, like a right arsehole

chose to appear when people wrote 'eyewitness accounts' from the other side of the mediterrenean hundreds of years later. Now that's quality reporting.

Sadly for me, in arguments with my fundy family, the god was always there argument, uttered in a tone of great knowingness,

is the one that usually starts my amygdala's outboard motor. What can you say to a claim like that that does not start with the words fuck you?

My efforts to keep my feet on sane and not impossibly (for me) philosophical ground always fail at this point.

Anyway - come back Angelo, you bloody bastard. I forgive you and I know that you forgive me.

 

 P.S. Don't reply to my 'god was here first query' anyone - I just found the naturalism vs super-naturalism thread. That's exactly what I was talking about

so I'll read that.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck