@Surroundx So the question is since we can not go beyond the beginning to find the answer what does the nature of the existing universe tell us.Does it show evidence for random cosmic evolution or intelligent design ?
@pestmanpat Nothing can exist immaterially, including god. So whatever the cause of the big bang, if there was one, must be material in nature. If god has no physical body, and an angel has no physical body, how are they different from each other?
@Surroundx Yet scientists tell us that what ever was responsible for the first event was Immaterial. I believe the first cause,an intelligent agent consisted of some form of energy.It is said that to a photon for example space time does not exist so what is material is dependent on the reference point.
@pestmanpat Scientists don't tell us that the cause of the singularity was immaterial. The most plausible theory so far is that it was produced by quantum fluctuations from an energy field. Space time itself does not exist, so everything is relative. You didn't rebut my point that nothing can exist immaterially?
@Surroundx You didn't rebut my point that nothing can exist immaterially?
Well i am not sure i want to or need to.If matter is an expression of energy or matter is just bound energy then the two are in a sense the same thing.Yet as matter is a particular expression of energy it is expressed as ''material''..So when i say that
science and in fact many theists state that the universe came from an immaterial cause
@pestmanpat Interestingly both atheists and theists agree that energy is eternal in that it can neither be created or destroyed.Its not that much of a stretch then in light of the abundance of apparent design in the cosmos that the original form of energy possessed intelligence.
@pestmanpat Energy is not immaterial. A significant portion of the mass of the universe itself is dark energy. Therefore dark energy has mass. And anything which is immaterial has no physical "body", for want of a better word, and so it cannot have mass. Energy is material.
"A significant portion of the universe itself is dark energy"
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of HYPOTHETICAL entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and DARK ENERGY are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
“An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” from a worldwide dissenting list of physicists published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004."
Agreed that on the hindsight the probability of a Creator with all his sadistic qualities as attributed in religious jargon IS as probable as the best scientific theories out there.
But the crux is that the proof of scientific hypothesis which is direct or indirect is based on other facts and theories which have been established without contradictions based on data and mathematical calculations which yields a conditional probability higher than creator theory or any other unscientific one.
Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for God? It strikes me that a God should be able to create life in ANY universe- even one that wasn't fine tuned for its existence (we could just be floating through a vacuum, living off hydrogen atoms). In this sense, it would actually be better evidence for a God if the universe WASN'T fine tuned for its existence but the life still existed. And thus the argument falls apart.
@GodTheHypothesis Well thats a different way of looking at it.Of course if God were not working with the known laws of physics that could be true.Then again if that were the case we may as well be made of wax like the characters in ''Night at the museum''.
without any logical explanation to our existence.What if God created the universe like a man creates a garden.Not all places in a garden are good for planting but there are oasis states throughout.cont-
Wow, an honest reply. You might just be a real christian. I usually get ridiculous or angry responses to that when people realise they don't have a good reply. As far as I see it, all of these types of arguments don't get you very far because you just tend to see the data in light of the beliefs you already hold. What I WOULD like to see is some predictions being made that would confirm or disprove any given god, then I'd listen to religions.
@GodTheHypothesisRE; Confirmation of anything is not easy.We have never seen an ape man and we have never seen God if you get what im saying. But there is strong evidence for design in DNA for instance.Secular scientists have long claimed the vast majority of DNA was ''Junk''.In 1994 Intelligent design proponants made the bold claim that as DNA was designed function would be found.Today they have discovered many fubnctions and Scientists have moved away from the term junk DNA
@GodTheHypothesis Then there are rocky areas,pavers,ect where plants could not exist yet those areas serve a purpose none the less.I Think God created the universe and its laws with biological life in mind.
Well if he created with biological life in mind, how come we're the only planet we know of that supports life? When people say to me that the universe is fine-tuned for life, I tend to look at the rest of the solar system and think "wellll.....it's also fine-tuned for environments that don't support life"
@GodTheHypothesis The universe is estimated to be 150 billion light years across.If there are other planets suitable for life the chances of us being able to discover them from our tiny vantage point in space and time is infinity small.Yet from what we do know about the universe it is easy to see that allthough the earth is unique in comparison to the other known planets,the chnace of other oasis or Goldilocks zones are very high.cont-
@GodTheHypothesis That is because the laws of physics extend throughout the universe.We know that habitable conditions such as water heat light ect can be found in space.The universe is fine tuned because the laws of gravity, thermodynamics ect seem to be consistent throughout the universe.When enough of the requirements for life are present in one place,life is possible.
Ok well I'll be the first to comment. Of course the beginning of the universe had to be exceedingly "special" in some sense- otherwise it wouldn't have given rise to all this. However, that in itself is not enough to claim that it was improbable. You need an understanding of the physics behind it to truly know such a thing. As weinberg says, the theory of everything could (if discovered) could show that this beginning configuration of the universe was inevitable. I'll ask a question in reply...
Either God has always existed, or matter has. Take your pick.
Surroundx 1 month ago
@Surroundx So the question is since we can not go beyond the beginning to find the answer what does the nature of the existing universe tell us.Does it show evidence for random cosmic evolution or intelligent design ?
pestmanpat 1 month ago
@pestmanpat Nothing can exist immaterially, including god. So whatever the cause of the big bang, if there was one, must be material in nature. If god has no physical body, and an angel has no physical body, how are they different from each other?
Surroundx 1 month ago
@Surroundx Yet scientists tell us that what ever was responsible for the first event was Immaterial. I believe the first cause,an intelligent agent consisted of some form of energy.It is said that to a photon for example space time does not exist so what is material is dependent on the reference point.
pestmanpat 1 month ago
@pestmanpat Scientists don't tell us that the cause of the singularity was immaterial. The most plausible theory so far is that it was produced by quantum fluctuations from an energy field. Space time itself does not exist, so everything is relative. You didn't rebut my point that nothing can exist immaterially?
Surroundx 1 month ago
@Surroundx You didn't rebut my point that nothing can exist immaterially?
Well i am not sure i want to or need to.If matter is an expression of energy or matter is just bound energy then the two are in a sense the same thing.Yet as matter is a particular expression of energy it is expressed as ''material''..So when i say that
science and in fact many theists state that the universe came from an immaterial cause
that's what i would be referring to. cont-
pestmanpat 1 month ago
@pestmanpat Interestingly both atheists and theists agree that energy is eternal in that it can neither be created or destroyed.Its not that much of a stretch then in light of the abundance of apparent design in the cosmos that the original form of energy possessed intelligence.
pestmanpat 1 month ago
@pestmanpat Energy is not immaterial. A significant portion of the mass of the universe itself is dark energy. Therefore dark energy has mass. And anything which is immaterial has no physical "body", for want of a better word, and so it cannot have mass. Energy is material.
Surroundx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Surroundx
"A significant portion of the universe itself is dark energy"
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of HYPOTHETICAL entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and DARK ENERGY are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
FSApetheist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Surroundx
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
“An Open Letter to the Scientific Community,” from a worldwide dissenting list of physicists published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004."
FSApetheist 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Surroundx
New Study Throws Dark Matter Finding Into Question
h tt p: //news . yahoo . c om /study-throws-dark-matter-finding-225403213.h t m l
FSApetheist 1 week ago
Agreed that on the hindsight the probability of a Creator with all his sadistic qualities as attributed in religious jargon IS as probable as the best scientific theories out there.
But the crux is that the proof of scientific hypothesis which is direct or indirect is based on other facts and theories which have been established without contradictions based on data and mathematical calculations which yields a conditional probability higher than creator theory or any other unscientific one.
jrswordfish1 2 months ago
Why is the fine-tuning argument a good argument for God? It strikes me that a God should be able to create life in ANY universe- even one that wasn't fine tuned for its existence (we could just be floating through a vacuum, living off hydrogen atoms). In this sense, it would actually be better evidence for a God if the universe WASN'T fine tuned for its existence but the life still existed. And thus the argument falls apart.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Well thats a different way of looking at it.Of course if God were not working with the known laws of physics that could be true.Then again if that were the case we may as well be made of wax like the characters in ''Night at the museum''.
without any logical explanation to our existence.What if God created the universe like a man creates a garden.Not all places in a garden are good for planting but there are oasis states throughout.cont-
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
Wow, an honest reply. You might just be a real christian. I usually get ridiculous or angry responses to that when people realise they don't have a good reply. As far as I see it, all of these types of arguments don't get you very far because you just tend to see the data in light of the beliefs you already hold. What I WOULD like to see is some predictions being made that would confirm or disprove any given god, then I'd listen to religions.
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesisRE; Confirmation of anything is not easy.We have never seen an ape man and we have never seen God if you get what im saying. But there is strong evidence for design in DNA for instance.Secular scientists have long claimed the vast majority of DNA was ''Junk''.In 1994 Intelligent design proponants made the bold claim that as DNA was designed function would be found.Today they have discovered many fubnctions and Scientists have moved away from the term junk DNA
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis Then there are rocky areas,pavers,ect where plants could not exist yet those areas serve a purpose none the less.I Think God created the universe and its laws with biological life in mind.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@pestmanpat
Well if he created with biological life in mind, how come we're the only planet we know of that supports life? When people say to me that the universe is fine-tuned for life, I tend to look at the rest of the solar system and think "wellll.....it's also fine-tuned for environments that don't support life"
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis The universe is estimated to be 150 billion light years across.If there are other planets suitable for life the chances of us being able to discover them from our tiny vantage point in space and time is infinity small.Yet from what we do know about the universe it is easy to see that allthough the earth is unique in comparison to the other known planets,the chnace of other oasis or Goldilocks zones are very high.cont-
pestmanpat 3 months ago
@GodTheHypothesis That is because the laws of physics extend throughout the universe.We know that habitable conditions such as water heat light ect can be found in space.The universe is fine tuned because the laws of gravity, thermodynamics ect seem to be consistent throughout the universe.When enough of the requirements for life are present in one place,life is possible.
pestmanpat 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pestmanpat Seems like Roger Penrose has never heard of Stephen Hawking.
watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
;)
skatejam7 3 months ago
@pestmanpat Go to 29:14 if you don't want to watch it all...
skatejam7 3 months ago
@pestmanpat Seems like Roger Penrose has never heard of Stephen Hawking.
29:14 ;)
skatejam7 3 months ago
Ok well I'll be the first to comment. Of course the beginning of the universe had to be exceedingly "special" in some sense- otherwise it wouldn't have given rise to all this. However, that in itself is not enough to claim that it was improbable. You need an understanding of the physics behind it to truly know such a thing. As weinberg says, the theory of everything could (if discovered) could show that this beginning configuration of the universe was inevitable. I'll ask a question in reply...
GodTheHypothesis 3 months ago