Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 7:29pm

On the other hand we have religion: a few crazy ideas

I am not the proponent of religion, either of some crazy ideas. Actually, what i think is crazy, is to believe, no God exists. If there is no God, why are we here, the way made , as we are ? Able to share information. Able to create a computer, which alouds us to share ideas , thousands of miles away, each from another ? Crazy the idea to believe, such intelligent minds are the product of random chance, evolution, but not of a even more intelligent mind......

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 27, 2011 at 9:26pm

I can see why you might think it's crazy if you know nothing about evolution.

As for "why are we here?"... why not?

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 27, 2011 at 9:43pm

If there is no God, "Why are we here?" is a question we are free to answer for ourselves. It isn't crazy to believe God exists. It's just ignorant and baseless. Notice none of your arguments are from knowledge but from sheer speculation.

You probably haven't studied the subject enough to know that you are making the so-called "watchmaker argument" which goes something like this: "If you found a watch and opened it up to examine it and saw all of the gears and springs and ratchets so efficiently working together to keep time, wouldn't you naturally assume a watchmaker made the watch, because surely all of these parts wouldn't come together on their own. Using the same logic, doesn't the order apparent in the universe imply a universe-maker? That maker is God."

Of course, why God? Why not Satan? Krishna? Ahura Mazda?

Permalink Reply by Ed on December 27, 2011 at 9:42am

Arguments to be a strong atheist:

The cosmological record (99% of all cosmologists incidentally are atheistic) shows that our planet is but one of billions in our universe that can potentially support life. The notion that a supernatural being formed this tiny rock just for us is quite laughable.

The scientific record (95 % of all members of the National Academy of Sciences lean toward atheism) provides clear and overwhelming evidence of our evolution through natural selection over millions of years. Fossil gaps and irreducible complexity simply don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Our understanding of the origins of religion having a basis in animism and our ancestor's ignorance of natural phenomena. 

The plethora of religions and their servile dogma that all incidentally profess to be correct. 

And finally, ladies and gentlemen, drum roll please, exceptional claims (god is among us) require EXCEPTIONAL evidence. We're still waiting.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 7:35pm

The cosmological record (99% of all cosmologists incidentally are atheistic) shows that our planet is but one of billions in our universe that can potentially support life.

http://www.godsci.com/gs/new/finetuning.html

Carbon chemistry

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that 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 epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

The scientific record (95 % of all members of the National Academy of Sciences lean toward atheism) provides clear and overwhelming evidence of our evolution through natural selection over millions of years.

Adpopulum fallacy.....

And finally, ladies and gentlemen, drum roll please, exceptional claims (god is among us) require EXCEPTIONAL evidence.

The assertion no God is required to create this world, requires even more faith, and exeptional evidence. Have any to share ?

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 27, 2011 at 8:18pm

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that 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.

And so, as the statistic implies, we don't exactly see life everywhere we look, do we? In fact, there's no evidence at all of live ANYWHERE else. In fact, we might be the only planet like that. Life here, then, is simply coincidental with the rather odd nature of our planet.

Ad populum is not a fallacy of deductive logic. Even as a fallacy of verbal logic, the only fallaciousness is if one takes it not as merely strong evidence, but instead as conclusive proof. ButI doubt if anyone of any intelligence asserts it that way.

The assertion that no God is required to create this world is based on the absurdity of the opposing assertion: that everything must have a cause and that thus God must be the cause of this world. Oh, except that there is one exception: God was without cause. Okay, if one thing can happen without a cause (God), why not something else (the universe)?

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 10:12pm

And so, as the statistic implies, we don't exactly see life everywhere we look, do we? In fact, there's no evidence at all of live ANYWHERE else.

That doesn't make the odds smaller, that life arose here on earth by chance. So chance is a very bad answer. 

PROBABILITY FOR LIFE ON EARTH (APR 2004)

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-...

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.
WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. 
ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. 
OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. 
RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.
THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. 
DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles. 
RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.
DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior. 
THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer. 
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: 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. 
EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field. 
SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate. 
THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 27, 2011 at 10:29pm

What you don't seem to "get" is that if carbon-based life were to pop up somewhere, it would be on a suitable planet. So, the fact that this planet, which has the conditions for carbon-based life, has carbon-based life isn't surprising. It would be surprising if it existed elsewhere, on the Moon or Mercury, for example.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 10:32pm

 So, the fact that this planet, which has the conditions for carbon-based life, has carbon-based life isn't surprising.

Oh i see. The odds , to host carbon based life, is vanishingly small. But that is just normal.......When you win on the lottery, out of millions that bet together with you, will you feel the same ? oh , thats just normal ??!! 

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 27, 2011 at 9:56pm

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that 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.

Funny, you call others out on ad-populum fallacies while committing the appeal to authority fallacy yourself.

Leonard Susskind, also a leading-edge theoretical physicist, is a proponent of the Anthropic principle: the idea that there are many, many universes within a multiverse.  If we assume physical constants are in fact random (notice I don't say "chosen"), there could be other universes out there with constants that support totally different kids of life, apart from carbon-based.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 10:13pm

Funny, you call others out on ad-populum fallacies while committing the appeal to authority fallacy yourself.

Its perfectly fine to cite someone, that is a specialist in its field. What is the case with Lee Smolin. 

Permalink Reply by Angelo on December 27, 2011 at 10:14pm

Leonard Susskind, also a leading-edge theoretical physicist, is a proponent of the Anthropic principle: the idea that there are many, many universes within a multiverse.  If we assume physical constants are in fact random (notice I don't say "chosen"), there could be other universes out there with constants that support totally different kids of life, apart from carbon-based.

So what kind of physics is your cited friend applying, to deduce a multiverse ? 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page