who created God

Newbie First Class Joined: Aug 06, 2010 Posts: 35

MockingGods wrote:

a/o wrote:

why do you insist in this argument ?

why?... Why?... WHY?...

Because saying the universe is "fine tuned" for life is by far the dumbest thing anyone could say, when at best only an extremely limited portion of the universe might be hospitable. Just admit it's a bad argument and we can be done with it..

i believe its only one place, and chance that life arose only at this planet alone, is remotely small. That the universe is finely tuned for life, is based on scientific knowledge, and deduced on our scientific discoveries. So there is nothing dumb to day that. If the creator decided it should be only on planet earth, so what?

Quote:

Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible.

If an intelligent being designed this place for life, why build a superfluous planet to suck up the space junk when you could have built the fucking system without the junk in the first place. [/quote]

Asteroids are material left over from the formation of the solar system. its interesting that you answer in regard of that, but all the other coincidences do not make you think ?

Only to get our solar/earth/moon sistem right to permit life , 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 design.

Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:37 pm

a/o wrote:

i believe its only one place, and chance that life arose only at this planet alone, is remotely small.

What will happen to your belief if we discover evidence of life on Mars or Europa?

Quote:

That the universe is finely tuned for life, is based on scientific knowledge, and deduced on our scientific discoveries. So there is nothing dumb to day that.

It's dumb to say "the universe is finely tuned for life" when the bulk of the universe isn't. This deduction doesn't take rocket science to understand.

This deduction is further compounded when you believe something as absurd as the following.

Quote:

If the creator decided it should be only on planet earth, so what?

Not the "creator" part, but that life might only be found on one planet in an observable universe so vast it almost certainly must contain billions of earth like planets. And considering life might only arise on an earth like planet is another anthropomorphic bias. You have this fine tuning thing ass backwards. The universe isn't fined tuned for anything; life fine tunes itself for the environment it develops in.

Quote:

Asteroids are material left over from the formation of the solar system. its interesting that you answer in regard of that, but all the other coincidences do not make you think ?

My point address the "designer" argument, nothing else. I'm well aware this matter is simply substance that hasn't yet naturally accreted to a larger body. If an intelligent designer created this system, why not clean up its mess or not create the mess in the first place? It's ridiculous to believe the current state of our system is anything but a purely natural occurrence based on this fact alone.

Quote:

Only to get our solar/earth/moon sistem right to permit life , 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 design.

Spamming these pointless numbers doesn't validate your assertion. In fact, they're beginning to make you look somewhat puerile.

Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 8:47 pm

a/o wrote:

The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.

I missed this little gem. You're using a naturalistic argument to validate your "designer" argument, when I'm sure you believe this designer isn't bound by naturalistic constraints and could produce everything, including intelligent life ex nihilo. Is this really a road you want to go down?

and this...

Quote:

The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve.

is a false assumption. It could only apply to the intelligent life on this planet and can not address other possible instances. Intelligent life might not have evolved on this planet at all if the dinosaurs had persisted. Their extinction is most likely what allowed mammalian life to flourish and eventually lead to us. Or perhaps an intelligent dino species might have evolved even sooner.

Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:32 pm

M_G wrote:

and this...

Goldilocks wrote:

The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve.

is a false assumption. It could only apply to the intelligent life on this planet and can not address other possible instances. Intelligent life might not have evolved on this planet at all if the dinosaurs had persisted. Their extinction is most likely what allowed mammalian life to flourish and eventually lead to us. Or perhaps an intelligent dino species might have evolved even sooner.

Yes, the universe is big... really big.... you might think it's a long way to the 7-11, but that's PEANUTS to space... Very Happy

No, in fact, the dinosaurs did not die out, and continue to live in vast underground caverns with their own internal suns.

And, as for the cosmic number... I'm here to reveal that it's FOURTY TWO. Rolling Eyes

In response to the 'Goldilocks Universe' I'd say that the dials are probably not as locked in as we are led to think by the theists.
http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Landscape-String-Illusion-Intelligent/dp/0316155799

Quote:

His second thesis is that these developments - especially the way in which string theory, which was originally hoped could prove mathematically that the various physical constants could have only one uniquely determined set of values, turned out to be a family of five, then many, then mind bogglingly many, distinct theories - are not the intellectual catastrophe some have felt them to be. Rather they are an argument in favor of the truth of string theory, because the innumerable variations in the laws of physics permitted by the various string theories provides a naturalistic explanation for the Anthropic Principle. To wit: cosmic inflation creates innumerable new universes all the time, each with its own set of physical constants, and it is not surprising that some of them should have laws (and in particular a value for Einstein's cosmological constant, which is more extremely constrained than any of the others) which permit life to arise. The collection of all these possible universes, by analogy with the "fitness landscapes" of evolutionary theory in biology, is what Susskind designates as "the cosmic landscape" of the title.

Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:38 am

Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 6:20 am

MockingGods wrote:

HAH!! have you been to the mountain and read GOD's message to his creation...?

the mice will of course, be furious! Very Happy

Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:55 am

AlphaOmega wrote:

Only to get our solar/earth/moon sistem right to permit life , 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 design.

The chance of me winning the lottery is so small that it is almost 0. However, the chance of at least a person winning tonight's lottery draw is extremely high. In fact the likelihood of more than one person winning tonight is pretty good. The likelihood of life developing on any one particular planet is probably extremely small but the likelihood of life developing on any planet is probably extremely high. Earth simply won the lottery.

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 1:16 am

Did I just killed this thread or is everyone just worn out?

Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:03 am

BelovedSonofRock wrote:

Did I just killed this thread or is everyone just worn out?

I think a/o has left the stadium Sad

Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am

BelovedSonofRock wrote:

AlphaOmega wrote:

Only to get our solar/earth/moon sistem right to permit life , 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 design.

The chance of me winning the lottery is so small that it is almost 0. However, the chance of at least a person winning tonight's lottery draw is extremely high. In fact the likelihood of more than one person winning tonight is pretty good. The likelihood of life developing on any one particular planet is probably extremely small but the likelihood of life developing on any planet is probably extremely high. Earth simply won the lottery.

Nicely put, BSoR, I mean, you'd think planets like ours would be extremely rare and we don't yet know for sure BUT we're zeroing in on that via the Kepler probe and hopefully the Terrestrial Planet Finder (search Wiki for more) which will give better observational information... one thing seem sure is that the amount of rocky planets in the universe is likely to be very high (even better than estimates of a decade ago)... there has been no shortage of gas giants detected around stars and binary systems and based on what is known about solar system formation, you can bet where there are gas giants, there are likely to be other 'earths'

As to how 'designed' our solar system is, how 'tuned' to life it is... WTF? The simple response to that is... where's the Nobel Prize for figuring out one of the most amazing things in astronomy!!!

That idea of how the moon is just the right size, distance etc and how it exactly covers the sun during an eclipse is total BUNKUM -> go search 'The Bad Astronomer' website I'm sure that one's been debunked there.... it's just not worth going on about in detail.

Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 12:30 am

iPondR wrote:

Nicely put, BSoR...

Thank you, but I cannot take credit for that. I read it in a podcast, either The Infidel Guy or Point of Inquiry.

Quote:

As to how 'designed' our solar system is, how 'tuned' to life it is... WTF? The simple response to that is... where's the Nobel Prize for figuring out one of the most amazing things in astronomy!!!

That idea of how the moon is just the right size, distance etc and how it exactly covers the sun during an eclipse is total BUNKUM -> go search 'The Bad Astronomer' website I'm sure that one's been debunked there.... it's just not worth going on about in detail.

An acquaintance was using the "fined tuned" argument on me when she said that if the atmosphere was different, or if the planet was warmer, or if it has spun faster, or if the moon was closer we wouldn't have life on this planet. Then I explained to her that life existed on this planet when there was just traces of oxygen in the air and the water was so full of iron that its color was green. And that at one time the oxygen content of the air was so high that insects were able to grow to huge sizes. Then I explained that the moon was much closer to the earth causing much larger high tides and that each century it is a little further away. And that at one time the earth spun much faster on it axis to the point that it had a much shorter day and that it is still slowing down. When I explain how we know these things she didn't change her mind because it didn't "feel" right but it did get her to change the topic.

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:16 am

Hi iPondR!

Yes, I'm b-a-a-a-a-a-a-ack. Smile

Been thinking about your question, Event vs. Process.

Here's my take on it...

1 .
A one-off Creation event, as preferred by the Theists, usually has the 2nd law of thermodynamics somewhere in the mix. (I aim to cover some of AO's points about cosmic heat death in this message.) The 2nd can be seen in action everywhere we look, from the decay of atomic particles, up to the decay of stars and galaxies. So, it looks as if things are running down. But is this the real picture?

2 .
To get a handle on the 'real picture' we need to examine how and where the 2nd applies. See here.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system
Please look at the three headings (Isolated, Closed and Open) in the Overview section and compare them to the diagram to their left. In an Isolated system, nothing can cross the boundary between the system and it's surroundings. In a Closed system, only energy can cross the boundary and in an Open system, both matter and energy can cross the boundary. As far as I can see, the Open option doesn't really apply to the diagram, because if matter and energy (therefore, also information) can cross the boundary, what's the point of a boundary? There's no real difference between the System and the Surroundings, because they are continuously interacting. The whole of the diagram might as well be colored grey.

3 .
Now skip down to 'Systems in Equilibrium' and read that too. Ok, now for the big question. Which kind of system is our universe - Isolated, Closed or Open?
This is important, because, only an Isolated system can experience thermodynamic equilibrium, a.k.a. heat death. Neither a Closed or Open system can experience heat-death, because in each case something is crossing the boundary - either energy (Closed system) or Matter and Energy (Open system). As I said above, our universe seems to have the appearance of an Isolated system that's winding down to it's heat death. "Seems to..." That's the catch! Now I'll list the lines of evidence that (to my mind) indicate that our universe is not an Isolated system.

4 .
Where is the Boundary?
If we live in an Isolated thermodynamic system, there must be a boundary that prevents the inflow of energy and/or matter from whatever 'surrounds' our universe. The edge of the Observable universe does not qualify as this boundary. That's all it is, a limit to how far we can see - nothing more. It isn't a wall or defining boundary of any kind.
Please go to this Wiki page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) The salient points we need to grasp are these;
* In the first paragraph the universe's expansion is said to have increased exponentially in size by a factor of 10 78 within 10 36 to 10 32 seconds. Put simply, for the universe to get so BIG in such a small time, it must have done so at superluminal speed. Yes! Super-luminal, as in faster than the speed of light.
* The first sentence of the 'Overview' section confirms this by using the word, "in". Special Relativity only applies to objects in the universe, not to the actual fabric of the space-time continuum itself. Space-time can expand at any speed it likes.
* The 'Observational Status' section agrees with what AO has said, the Big Bang theory is the best-supported cosmological model.
However, if we accept this model, we also have to accept that Inflation requires us NOT to take the edge of the Observable universe as any kind of Boundary. Super-luminal inflation implies that there is much, much more of our universe beyond the Observational horizon, than within it. So what we see is not all that there is. Therefore, if AO accepts the standard Big Bang model, he should also accept Inflation and he should also accept that we have not discovered any definite physical boundary that would make our universe an Isolated Thermodynamic System.
Conclusion: To hold to the standard Big Bang model is to hold to a universe that is either a Closed or Open Thermodynamic System, not an Isolated one.

5 .
There is another line of evidence that implies that our universe is not an Isolated system - Dark Flow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow In this case, gravitational energy from regions beyond our observable universe, appear to be affecting large areas of ours. If the edge of the Observable Universe were a real boundary, this would not be possible. Nothing, not even gravity, could cross the boundary, to make it's effects felt within our universe.

6 .
So iPondR, the jury is most definitely out, when it comes to claim that our universe is an Isolated system. Isolation runs counter to Inflation and, taken together with Dark Flow, the implication is that we appear to be in either a Closed or Open system. Please note that I say, 'implication'. The jury cannot yet come to a firm conclusion, one way or another. They have no definitive knowledge to do so.

7 .
Christianity requires God to be eternal, but his created universe to be a finite construct, with a definite beginning (Genesis) and ending (Revelation), that is - an Isolated system.
However, we cannot positively say that our universe is an Isolated system. It could be, but Inflation implies that the physical boundary that is needed to isolate us can never be found, because it lies beyond the observable universe. Another factor, that seems to indicate that we are living in a created, isolated system is the Big Bang itself. It appears to be the Genesis of the universe. So, a Theist would argue that we do observe a beginning. This is where the KCA rears it's ugly head. But, we've already covered this ground. (It's not a proof. It deals only with inferred knowledge and yields only probabilities, not certainties. It begins with a metaphysical act of a-logical intuition. Etc., etc.) It's no help here either, because we still can't say if the Big Bang was the true point of origin or not.

8 .
If looked at in theological terms, the Big Bang is neither Theistic or Atheistic, it is Agnostic. It might be the true beginning of all things, but then again, it might not. Just as an agnostic will state that it's impossible to say if there's a God or not, the Big Bang effectively says the same thing about the origin of the universe. There is A-GNOSIS ("no knowledge") of anything before or beyond the Big Bang event that can be understood by the human mind. There are theories and models and speculations and arguments and religious beliefs, but no firm knowledge. Time 0 and Space 0 permit us no knowledge of Time -1 or Space -1. Theists claim certain knowledge, but they arrive at this conclusion thru logically inadmissible means.

9 .
Points 1 thru 8, lead me (rightly or wrongly) to the following conclusions;
* It's not possible to positively state that we live in a finite, isolated-system universe.
* It's not possible to positively state that we live in a closed-system universe.
* It's not possible to positively state that we live in an eternal, open-system universe.
* It's possible that we could be living in any one of the above.
* We can express what is probable, but currently that is all.
* Since Christianity requires an isolated-system universe and since it is not possible to say if we do live in one, Christianity remains an option not the answer.

10 .
So then iPondR, I find that I cannot answer your question, Event or Process, in any kind of satisfactory way. Sorry 'bout that! If the jury's still out, then I must be too. To take any other position would be dishonest of me. However, I do have certain views and certain theories that I find appealing. I won't mention them now because i must give others the chance to reply to this post. Ok?

Thanks,

BAA.

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:47 pm

Oh Shuggles! Mad

Unvertrackensteinganzelfirstenlastenbrugmantergeistmann!!! Exclamation

The Inflation Wiki link doesn't work as I'd planned. The url should finish like this... /wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

...but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) just messes up.

Once the Inflation page (Economics) comes up, the first sentence reads, "This article is about the general rise in the level of prices. For the expansion of the early universe, see Inflation (cosmology). "

Please click on the first link highlighted in blue .

Thanks,

BAA.

Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:29 pm

BAA wrote:

Yes, I'm b-a-a-a-a-a-a-ack. Smile

Welcome back! Great post Very Happy

Quote:

However, I do have certain views and certain theories that I find appealing. I won't mention them now because i must give others the chance to reply to this post. Ok?

Just as long as you eventually do. I'm very interested in your opinions on this subject.

Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:17 pm

MockingGods wrote:

BAA wrote:

Yes, I'm b-a-a-a-a-a-a-ack. Smile

Welcome back! Great post Very Happy

Quote:

However, I do have certain views and certain theories that I find appealing. I won't mention them now because i must give others the chance to reply to this post. Ok?

Just as long as you eventually do. I'm very interested in your opinions on this subject.

Thanks for the kind words, MG. Smile

Funnily enough, I do lie awake in bed, thinking about these things when I should be trying to get some sleep. It takes a determined act of will to stop myself from thinking cosmology/theology/astronomy and to start thinking about other stuff - thoughts more conducive to slumber. (Shrugs.) Go figure!

Anyway, as I see it MG, here's how the to-do items currently stack up in this thread.
1. Wait a respectable amount of time for AO to respond.
2. Ditto, for anyone else to do likewise.
3. Tackle the fine-tuning issue.
4. Give iPondR some satisfaction by outlining my views and opinions on the Event vs. Process question.
5. AOB. Can't think of anything else outstanding? Can you?

Thanks,

BAA.

p.s.
A little bird tells me that I might have brought a 'friend' back with me, after my two-week absence. Somebody from another forum. Shame the Memberlist Module isn't active for me to double-check. I s'pose they Googled, 'BornAgainAthiest' and traced me to here.
(Waves! Very Happy

)
"Hellooooooooo! Yes, I spotted your moniker. It came up briefly, as the Newest Registered User. Why not say 'Hi!'? We won't bite." (Much. Wink

)


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile