NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?

No, there isn't one, because religious (dis)belief is ultimately unable to be either confirmed or rejected. That's why I'm agnostic.

However, you have to conclude that it's also possible that matter has always existed, so there isn't necessarily a "something from nothing" question. It's also possible that something could come from nothing.

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.
First you explain in a logical fashion how god can come from nothing

You require an explanation of an opposing idea without requiring it of yours ... thats hypocritical.

And here comes the curcituitous debaaaaate!:rolleyes: ;)

No, there isn't one, because religious (dis)belief is ultimately unable to be either confirmed or rejected. That's why I'm agnostic.

However, you have to conclude that it's also possible that matter has always existed, so there isn't necessarily a "something from nothing" question. It's also possible that something could come from nothing.
Agreed
Its not so much about disproving then it is having a lack of belief

Thats what religion is a belief, those with it are religious those without it are not
It does not necessarily require proof for one side or the other

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.


You mean like God? :rolleyes:

Before this dissolves into a flame war (don't worry.. This is NS general, it won't take long), I'll try to put some perspective on the issue. There is absolutely no proof either way (and if there was we would know there was no god). Neither extreme has any trumps all argument.

Therefore, it must all come down to what you personally beleive (or in the case of agnosticism; don't beleive).

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, a teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides.
Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing will ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all.
So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion turns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in even 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it!
And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. Laugh at the joke, please. It’s FUNNY. One false move and it's all over.
Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance.
What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.
What about atoms? You’ve got to have atoms to have anything existing. Atoms need precise relationships between protons and electrons and neutrons. A proton is 1836 times bigger than an electron, for example. A little messing with that number and the universe would never have formed. The remarkable thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible.
Now here’s my favourite. You’ve got to have slightly more matter than antimatter for the universe to have ever existed. If you have exactly the same amount they just annihilate each other, and the start of the universe would have been explosive all right, but you would be left with next to nothing. On the other hand too much matter and the universe would have collapsed so quickly after the Big Bang that no, planets, stars or galaxies could ever have formed. A variation as tiny as one part in 10 billion would have been have been enough to prevent the universe coming into existence.
OK, well, you can’t have life on our planet without carbon and oxygen. They’re created by burning hydrogen and helium inside stars. This is a bit complicated, but in the 1950’s they discovered that a couple of percentage points either way in the reaction and carbon would never have existed. Carbon is a stunning shock development. We’re carbon. So no carbon equals no us. If the oxygen resonance level were only half a percent higher, we’d get the same result.
Many, many scientists (for instance, Sir Hoyle, Stephen Hawking) have been converted to Christianity by their own shocking discoveries.

Largely Copyright © 2004 by Adrian Holloway

This writing is all about how fine-tuned and perfect are universe is. It is unbelievably unlikely that our universe would reach this age and be inhabitable!!

The issue with the idea that all space was crammed into a singularity of infinitesmal size and then spontaneously expanded is ultimately the same issue with the (possible) existence of a timeless deity. What does it mean for a god to exist before time had any meaning? How do you explain the existence of that god, if it "originated" from some "part" of the "history" of the universe "during" which neither space nor time nor causality had any meaning? (The quotes are put in because those terms have no meaning, where space, time and causality have no meaning.)

Maybe it's just me, but I think the idea that gods have been around before time existed to decompress a singularity into a universe is more extraordinary than the universe being crammed into one point and then uncramming itself.

Newton's "principle of parsimony" says that when trying to explain a phenomenon, try the simplest explanation first. If it appears to describe all the phenomena you see, then you can rest on your laurels until and unless new observations of phenomena render your explanation useless. Then, of course, you have to recompile your list of explanations and choose the simplest one that explains everything. That's science. (Note: this doesn't mean that a simple model is inherently better than a complex model - it just suggests that you should try out the simple model before trying the complex model, and that if the simple model works, you don't need the complex model to explain things.)

Dogma, on the other hand, seems to ignore contradictory information, or merely spawns a million and a half tangential arguments to explain it away.

Of course, BamBambambam (however many Bams damn it...), you can try that argument. It'll get you nowhere.

Are your highly unlikely (and slightly hyperbolic) arguments any more unlikely than, say, the sudden existence of a sky ghost with super powers? No, not really.

So once again, we reach square one, There's no proof either way.

A lot

Yes, our existence is bloody unlikely. A miracle if you wish, at extremely low odds. A reason to treasure it.

But wouldn't the existence of something even more amazing than us - e.g. God - be even more unlikely ?

Maybe it's just me, but I think the idea that gods have been around before time existed to decompress a singularity into a universe is more extraordinary than the universe being crammed into one point and then uncramming itself.


Well, if a god's a god, then nothing is too difficult or unlikely for him/her to do.

Of course, BamBambambam (however many Bams damn it...), you can try that argument. It'll get you nowhere.

Are your highly unlikely (and slightly hyperbolic) arguments any more unlikely than, say, the sudden existence of a sky ghost with super powers? No, not really.

So once again, we reach square one, There's no proof either way.

First of all, it's five Bams...

What do you bet your life on? An intelligent author writing a book with nice comprehendable sentences and real words, or an ink factory being blown up and all the ink splattering in exactly the right way to make a legible, organised book? I think I'd choose the former.

We can also think about this - if it was shown that the plane you were boarding had no more than one in a million chance of landing safely...would you get on and risk it???

Either you get a ridiculously unlikely, inexplicable universe, or a controlled one from a God (but I don't see how a god is so unlikely - if you ignore everything else, and I mean everything, there is a 50/50 chance, isn't there?)

Well, if a god's a god, then nothing is too difficult or unlikely for him/her to do.


Which basically dodges the question. It's a logical fallacy. We can never answer the question "Who creates the creater?"

There's no sound proof either way. Accept it and move on.

This writing is all about how fine-tuned and perfect are universe is. It is unbelievably unlikely that our universe would reach this age and be inhabitable!!
How many planets are there in the universe?

Let's see, if it's a one in quintillion chance that all the variables would turn out capable of supporting life as we know it, then (on average, if you checked across multiple universes) one in every quintillion planets will have people going "Whoa, our existence is so unlikely! It must have been elves/unicorns/Motorola/god!"

But it only takes one freak accident to create people who will say, "This freak accident could not have happened on its own!" Yeah, well, that's bullshit. It's a one in [some very large number] chance that a coin toss will leave the coin balanced on its edge, but I know I've seen it happen. That doesn't mean any deities were holding it up, it just means that given the way chance and large numbers work together, if something is physically possible it is likely to have happened, somewhere, sometime.

1. Theology != religion.
2. To introduce a god to explain nature is not an answer. You still have to explain how god did it.
3. Most scientists who believe in a god, don't believe in a personal god.
4. The really tricky question, were the parameters of the universe adjusted so that there could be life, or is there life because the parameters were just right (without adjustment)? Some more light will be shed into this in the next ten years. Stay tuned.
5. The real reason: There's no need to believe in a god or spirit. As simple as that.

Well, if a god's a god, then nothing is too difficult or unlikely for him/her to do.
Great, but where do gods come from? How?

First of all, it's five Bams...

What do you bet your life on? An intelligent author writing a book with nice comprehendable sentences and real words, or an ink factory being blown up and all the ink splattering in exactly the right way to make a legible, organised book? I think I'd choose the former.

Well, if there's no logical cause for the author to exist, the issue becomes more complicated, doesn't it?

So I pose you this question:

What's more likely, a writer magically coming into existence and writing a book or an ink factory blowing up and writing a book?

I'd say they're both equally unlikely (cop out answers aside) and that it's a matter of personal choice.

Great, but where do gods come from? How?
Big stork

Depends on what kind of magic, Sensible. :3

How many planets are there in the universe?

Let's see, if it's a one in quintillion chance that all the variables would turn out capable of supporting life as we know it, then (on average, if you checked across multiple universes) one in every quintillion planets will have people going "Whoa, our existence is so unlikely! It must have been elves/unicorns/Motorola/god!"

But it only takes one freak accident to create people who will say, "This freak accident could not have happened on its own!" Yeah, well, that's bullshit. It's a one in [some very large number] chance that a coin toss will leave the coin balanced on its edge, but I know I've seen it happen. That doesn't mean any deities were holding it up, it just means that given the way chance and large numbers work together, if something is physically possible it is likely to have happened, somewhere, sometime.


It's not the earth that's so unlikely, it's the existence of the universe. There is only one universe (that we know of, but I don't trust hypothetical imaginary ones...)

It's not the earth that's so unlikely, it's the existence of the universe. There is only one universe (that we know of, but I don't trust hypothetical imaginary ones...)
I don't trust hypothetical imaginary deities either

Great, but where do gods come from? How?

They don't come from, they just are - and "before" the universe, "when" there "was" no time or space, there was no time before that for the god to come from. So then he gets the sticker saying "Whoopee! I'm eternal today!"

There isn't a disproof, nor will there be. There won't be a proof either.
It all comes down to what you choose.
Many, many scientists (for instance, Sir Hoyle, Stephen Hawking) have been converted to Christianity by their own shocking discoveries.
Err, I've never heard anything about Stephen Hawking becoming a Christian. Source?

I don't trust hypothetical imaginary deities either

Well, we have no evidence whatsoever of a hypothetical imaginary universe.

It's not the earth that's so unlikely, it's the existence of the universe. There is only one universe (that we know of, but I don't trust hypothetical imaginary ones...)

So we know at least one universe exists - we won the galactic lottery.
Where exactly does God become involved ?

Depends on what kind of magic, Sensible. :3

Hey, magic is magic is magic is magic, ya know? I'm not given to have a whole lot of respect for it either way. :p

Besides which, otherwise all my carefully crafted dellusions about the universe would be shattered, and I'm short on time to clean them up. :)

Any sound, reliable proof against theology?
No; it's a perfectly valid field of study.

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?
Well, the big bang does not propose that something came from nothing, though religion does propose that God created something from nothing.

Lame, lame, lame. I can play the eternity game as well, and back it up with equations superior to Biblical bullshit-- Brane theory (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/media2/3014_q_06.html).
No beginning. No end. It just is.

I even included a video link in case you're uncomfortable getting your science from another book aside from the Bible.

Well, we have no evidence whatsoever of a hypothetical imaginary universe.


I draw you to the next logical statement in this progression... :p

Well we have no evidence of mythical fairymen making universes either.

What do you mean that the existence of the universe is unlikely? Likelihood and other such concepts don't have meaning except within this universe.

Well, if there's no logical cause for the author to exist, the issue becomes more complicated, doesn't it?

So I pose you this question:

What's more likely, a writer magically coming into existence and writing a book or an ink factory blowing up and writing a book?

I'd say they're both equally unlikely (cop out answers aside) and that it's a matter of personal choice.

ink factory appearing chances = something number one

author appearing chances = something number one

author writing book chances = a lot

ink factory writing book chances = not enough to see with a microscope

something number one times a lot is more likely than something number one times not enough to see with a microscope.

They're not equally likely!!

Here's a question, then, what lies beyond the universe?

I've heard tell that buffalo roam out there, but supposedly time doesn't even exist out there. And that's assuming that there's only one universe and not a multiverse (some speculate that our existence is the result of two universes colliding).

But, I digress. What is so unreasonable about assuming that there could be no time at a certain time in a certain area? Science itself seems to have embraced the idea of a 'time before time'.

However, it's nearly impossible to not get philosophy or religion involved at this level, but it's also nearly impossible to get any specific theology involved, either.

All that we know is that there's some magic shit out there. It could be a computer program, a sign of a Divine Creator, or simply our snowball's chance in hell. It can't be used to support any of those theories over any other.

So we know at least one universe exists - we won the galactic lottery.
Where exactly does God become involved ?

Creating and designing it!

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?

Well...my sound reasoning is this. Nothing religious has ever been proven. Ever. Therefore I feel no need to dedicate my life in an attempt to un-prove something that is not proven.

I've seen good come from religion, unfortunately that good rarely outweighs the bad.

As far as god coming from nothing, not the case. God came from humans, who needed an explanation and had not the scientific tools to describe things. Now we have those tools. Why is god still necessary?

Creating and designing it!

And on what do you base this assumption ? Does it actually answer questions and explain things, or does it just create new philosophical problems while evading to actually say something about the original ones ?

Assuming a God does not make understanding the universe easier - it does just the opposite. Unless you are willing to stop thinking of course.

Well...my sound reasoning is this. Nothing religious has ever been proven. Ever. Therefore I feel no need to dedicate my life in an attempt to un-prove something that is not proven.

I've seen good come from religion, unfortunately that good rarely outweighs the bad.

As far as god coming from nothing, not the case. God came from humans, who needed an explanation and had not the scientific tools to describe things. Now we have those tools. Why is god still necessary?

Paragraph one's reply: What makes you think that?? I won't go into the details (unless you ask me) but it has been scientifically shown that life couldn't have started spontaneously on earth unless you consider 10 to the power of 40000 possible.

Paragraph 2: I know, it's a shame. Terrorists led by religion to killing aren't very nice, I realise.

Paragraph 3: A god is necessary to save/care for/be ignored by people. And... describe what?

And on what do you base this assumption ? Does it actually answer questions and explain things, or does it just create new philosophical problems while evading to actually say something about the original ones ?

Assuming a God does not make understanding the universe easier - it does just the opposite. Unless you are willing to stop thinking of course.

The guy I was answering was basically asking what God's job was.

It's not supposed to make it easier, although it is supposed to explain it.

They don't come from, they just are - and "before" the universe, "when" there "was" no time or space, there was no time before that for the god to come from. So then he gets the sticker saying "Whoopee! I'm eternal today!"
So deities pop into existence at the same moment that universes expand outward from infinite compression? That suggests there's nothing eternal about them, merely that they last from the beginning of time until the (finitely distanced) end.

ink factory appearing chances = something number one

author appearing chances = something number one

author writing book chances = a lot

ink factory writing book chances = not enough to see with a microscope

something number one times a lot is more likely than something number one times not enough to see with a microscope.

They're not equally likely!!

Actually, they are, because both are a case of something coming from nothing. The chance of ANYTHING coming from nothing is 0.

0 * any number = 0.

Like I said. In the end, it comes down to which impossible magic you prefer.

Actually, they are, because both are a case of something coming from nothing. The chance of ANYTHING coming from nothing is 0.

0 * any number = 0.

Like I said. In the end, it comes down to which impossible magic you prefer.

The universe being here is proof enough for it coming from something. Something could be God, who didn't 'come' at all, or it could be nothing, which is impossible, like you just said.

So deities pop into existence at the same moment that universes expand outward from infinite compression? That suggests there's nothing eternal about them, merely that they last from the beginning of time until the (finitely distanced) end.

Deities don't pop into existence, because as I just explained they were always there, since immediately before the beginning of time, which in effect is infinitely before the beginning of time. And, while we're at it, where could the infinite compression pop into existence from apart from that deity?

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?

#1 reason to regect Religions: Look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to Hell. Since the object of Dualistic Religion is to "go to heaven" Dualistic Religions cannot account for the dichotomy between an an Omnipotent Deity that is both simultaneously Omnibeatific and Omnivengeful. Thus Dualistic "Revealed Religions" are bunk.

#2 (as stated previously) Theology != Religion

Deities don't pop into existence, because as I just explained they were always there, since immediately before the beginning of time, which in effect is infinitely before the beginning of time. And, while we're at it, where could the infinite compression pop into existence from apart from that deity?
Which explains nothing you only shuffle the problem of begining existance from the universe to god
It explains nothing

If everything needs a creator so does god

The universe being here is proof enough for it coming from something. Something could be God, who didn't 'come' at all, or it could be nothing, which is impossible, like you just said.


Actually, what I said is that BOTH are impossible. It's just as BS to assume that a magic man in the sky has either existed for eternity than to assume that the universe magically came into existence. Both are, undoubtedly, impossible.

However, in the case of eternal being (quite litterally, in the case that there has been existence for eternity), even impossible odds become possible. Magic men in the sky, however, remain impossible, because of the whole magic thing.

All that said however, I don't know or really care, I just wish everyone would shut the fuck up on the issue. Basically, it doesn't matter if there's a God and I'd just as soon ignore the blighter if he did exist as if he didn't.

Deities don't pop into existence, because as I just explained they were always there, since immediately before the beginning of time, which in effect is infinitely before the beginning of time. And, while we're at it, where could the infinite compression pop into existence from apart from that deity?
How can anything be before time existed? You haven't explained that. And what could bring about such a being as a god, anyway?

Also, a singularity under infinite compression is unstable. It tends to expand. (Obvious?)

Paragraph one's reply: What makes you think that?? I won't go into the details (unless you ask me) but it has been scientifically shown that life couldn't have started spontaneously on earth unless you consider 10 to the power of 40000 possible.
Well, first off, I'd like to ask for the details, as I haven't heard of this one yet. Secondly, the statement that something is possible but unlikely that you made second is a contradiction with the statement that that thing is not possible.

#1 reason to regect Religions: Look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to Hell. Since the object of Dualistic Religion is to "go to heaven" Dualistic Religions cannot account for the dichotomy between an an Omnipotent Deity that is both simultaneously Omnibeatific and Omnivengeful. Thus Dualistic "Revealed Religions" are bunk.

#2 (as stated previously) Theology != Religion

Well, if one religion is right (and one must be, since either God exists or he doesn't) then if people follow it, they (if it's a Heaven & Hell religion) go to heaven, the others to hell, NOT everyone going to hell.
Yes, the object of a religion is mainly to go to heaven. God is vengeful and generous (more generous than vengeful), but not omni-either, since some get punished no more harshly or lightly than they deserve, and some get the ultimate goal.

Alright... Let's look at all of the logical fallacies.

Defeating the ink factory metaphor is a strawman. Congratulations, you've disproved a bad metaphor.

And saying that because its unlikely we exist, it could not have occured naturally is pretty silly. Probably argument from ignorance, but in any case its bad logic. Consider that there are untold numbers of stars. Eventually, one or two will get things right. This is like saying winning the lottery is the result of divine intervention.

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?
Religion isn't required for understanding anything. Why do I need religion is a better question. I reject it out of more necessary things to do.

The problems are these:

We don't understand the Universe, we probably never will, and we probably cannot. We can't even understand what science is telling us now.

Assuming that there is a supernatural, all-powerful creator being, why would said being have to follow the rules that he/she/it/they/shi/sie invented for our material realm to follow?

Finally, there is no proof either way. And if there were proof either way, we would know more facts about this creator and have less myth. We don't.

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, a teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides.
Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist.
Those 'forces' are the interplay of energy/matter. And the best part of it is that those forces could not be anything other than what they are --they could not be the faction-of-anything-whatsoever off in order to create anything other than what they did. They are what they are.

Which reduces the unlikelihood considerably (and increases the likelihood of life on other planets).

Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing will ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all.
Again, how could the speed of dispersal be anything other than what it was, determined by natural forces?

So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion turns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in even 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it!
Again, how could the rate of slowing be anything other than what it was, determined by natural forces? The unlikelihood now, after the big bang, is reduced to zero.

And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery.
And this is somehow a fault? God is a mystery.

But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. Laugh at the joke, please. It’s FUNNY. One false move and it's all over.
Well, d'uh. They are the aforementioned natural forces.

Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance.
Again, the gravity cannot be altered, it cannot be anything other than what it is.

What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.
Wash, rinse, repeat. Dot dot dot.

What about atoms? You’ve got to have atoms to have anything existing. Atoms need precise relationships between protons and electrons and neutrons. A proton is 1836 times bigger than an electron, for example. A little messing with that number and the universe would never have formed. The remarkable thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible.
No one is messing with it, though. It is what it is. It cannot be anything else.

Now here’s my favourite. You’ve got to have slightly more matter than antimatter for the universe to have ever existed. If you have exactly the same amount they just annihilate each other, and the start of the universe would have been explosive all right, but you would be left with next to nothing. On the other hand too much matter and the universe would have collapsed so quickly after the Big Bang that no, planets, stars or galaxies could ever have formed. A variation as tiny as one part in 10 billion would have been have been enough to prevent the universe coming into existence.
OK, well, you can’t have life on our planet without carbon and oxygen. They’re created by burning hydrogen and helium inside stars. This is a bit complicated, but in the 1950’s they discovered that a couple of percentage points either way in the reaction and carbon would never have existed. Carbon is a stunning shock development. We’re carbon. So no carbon equals no us. If the oxygen resonance level were only half a percent higher, we’d get the same result.
Many, many scientists (for instance, Sir Hoyle, Stephen Hawking) have been converted to Christianity by their own shocking discoveries.

Largely Copyright © 2004 by Adrian Holloway

This writing is all about how fine-tuned and perfect are universe is. It is unbelievably unlikely that our universe would reach this age and be inhabitable!!
This writing is inverse divination. It looks at the universe as being set in place in relation to us, rather than us to it.

Alright... Let's look at all of the logical fallacies.

Defeating the ink factory metaphor is a strawman. Congratulations, you've disproved a bad metaphor.

And saying that because its unlikely we exist, it could not have occured naturally is pretty silly. Probably argument from ignorance, but in any case its bad logic. Consider that there are untold numbers of stars. Eventually, one or two will get things right. This is like saying winning the lottery is the result of divine intervention.
Not to mention they do a singular event probability calculation, they don't take into effect how many times that effect can occur.

Well, first off, I'd like to ask for the details, as I haven't heard of this one yet. Secondly, the statement that something is possible but unlikely that you made second is a contradiction with the statement that that thing is not possible.

Kk, the details are:

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff university, lots of boring stuff blah blah, says that he has calculated the odds and is 100 per cent certain of there having to be a God, and that his conclusion gave him a huge shock, from the Daily Express, 14 August 1981.

The contradiction is a mistake - what I meant to say is that 1 in 10 to the power of 40000 is just as good as nothing.

Those 'forces' are the interplay of energy/matter. And the best part of it is that those forces could not be anything other than what they are --they could not be the faction-of-anything-whatsoever off in order to create anything other than what they did. They are what they are.

Which reduces the unlikelihood considerably (and increases the likelihood of life on other planets).


Again, how could the speed of dispersal be anything other than what it was, determined by natural forces?


Again, how could the rate of slowing be anything other than what it was, determined by natural forces? The unlikelihood now, after the big bang, is reduced to zero.


And this is somehow a fault? God is a mystery.


Well, d'uh. They are the aforementioned natural forces.


Again, the gravity cannot be altered, it cannot be anything other than what it is.


Wash, rinse, repeat. Dot dot dot.


No one is messing with it, though. It is what it is. It cannot be anything else.


This writing is inverse divination. It looks at the universe as being set in place in relation to us, rather than us to it.

These bits about the forces being what they are is wierd - the forces' values or existence is not determined until the universe begins. Before then we don't even know whether it'll have atoms or start off covered in a thick coating of strawberry jam - it's just a universe with its own laws and habits.

Kk, the details are:

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff university, lots of boring stuff blah blah, says that he has calculated the odds and is 100 per cent certain of there having to be a God, and that his conclusion gave him a huge shock, from the Daily Express, 14 August 1981
Wow what an informative post

Your use of blah blah blah then a name drop of no significance really convinced me !

Kk, the details are:

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff university, lots of boring stuff blah blah, says that he has calculated the odds and is 100 per cent certain of there having to be a God, and that his conclusion gave him a huge shock, from the Daily Express, 14 August 1981
You could also catch a cold from that comet:

"Now by the way I find it rather amusing that Dr. Gish should base his case on Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. They wrote a book called Evolution From Space. Among other things, Fred Hoyle argues that insects are smarter than humans, but they're just not telling anybody. [Audience laughter] Wickramasinghe was the ICR's star witness at the creationism trial in Arkansas in 1981, and he proved to be quite an embarrassment to them. He testified that life on earth began with microbes in space that got caught in the tail of a comet and contaminated our planet. He blamed a 1978 flu epidemic on a virus from outer space. And when he was asked in cross-examination if believes children catch colds from comets, he replied, "That is so." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin2.html

Kk, the details are:

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff university, lots of boring stuff blah blah, says that he has calculated the odds and is 100 per cent certain of there having to be a God, and that his conclusion gave him a huge shock, from the Daily Express, 14 August 1981

Which just goes to show that either God or Free will canot exist, or that the experiment was flawed (I tend to beleive that, since you fail to show me how a magic man appeared from nothing and why its more likely that the universe isnt eternal). Since if God exists he cannot give us proof he exists without defying free will.

Once again, I repeat: Why do you even CARE? God should not matter anyway!

Wow what an informative post

Your use of blah blah blah then a name drop of no significance really convinced me !

Ok then. If I filled it in, it would be no use. But this shortened version was shortened from the quote on page 222 of Aftershock by Adrian Holloway if that makes you feel any better. Also you can check Blanchard on page 298. The blahs represent bits like '...worked alongside people you've never heard of and other useless things.' If you want to check for sure, get the book.

Ok then. If I filled it in, it would be no use. But this shortened version was shortened from the quote on page 222 of Aftershock by Adrian Holloway if that makes you feel any better. Also you can check Blanchard on page 298. The blahs represent bits like '...worked alongside people you've never heard of and other useless things.' If you want to check for sure, get the book.
Do you believe also that you can catch a cold from a comet?

Which just goes to show that either God or Free will canot exist, or that the experiment was flawed (I tend to beleive that, since you fail to show me how a magic man appeared from nothing and why its more likely that the universe isnt eternal). Since if God exists he cannot give us proof he exists without defying free will.

Once again, I repeat: Why do you even CARE? God should not matter anyway!

I care because I know him personally in a two-way relationship that I know exists because I feel it, and he will save me and release my guilt if I follow him.

But of course that makes no difference to you because you don't believe me.

You could also catch a cold from that comet:

"Now by the way I find it rather amusing that Dr. Gish should base his case on Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. They wrote a book called Evolution From Space. Among other things, Fred Hoyle argues that insects are smarter than humans, but they're just not telling anybody. [Audience laughter] Wickramasinghe was the ICR's star witness at the creationism trial in Arkansas in 1981, and he proved to be quite an embarrassment to them. He testified that life on earth began with microbes in space that got caught in the tail of a comet and contaminated our planet. He blamed a 1978 flu epidemic on a virus from outer space. And when he was asked in cross-examination if believes children catch colds from comets, he replied, "That is so." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/saladin2.html

wierd.

gone to bed, back tomorrow. Cya.

I care because I know him personally in a two-way relationship that I know exists because I feel it, and he will save me and release my guilt if I follow him.

But of course that makes no difference to you because you don't believe me.

Well I dont actually actively disbeleive you, I just don't think that there's proof either way and I don't care.

I owe nothing to God and I wish to fuck his followers would just leave me alone and that if "he" cares so much that he would just leave me alone and let me make my own descisions, without blackmailing me. :rolleyes:

Ok then. If I filled it in, it would be no use. But this shortened version was shortened from the quote on page 222 of Aftershock by Adrian Holloway if that makes you feel any better. Also you can check Blanchard on page 298. The blahs represent bits like '...worked alongside people you've never heard of and other useless things.' If you want to check for sure, get the book.
You are using quotes from a fictional youth book to prove your probability calculations were right? wow

These bits about the forces being what they are is wierd - the forces' values or existence is not determined until the universe begins. Before then we don't even know whether it'll have atoms or start off covered in a thick coating of strawberry jam - it's just a universe with its own laws and habits.
Forces are the interplay of energy/matter. They come into 'play' when energy/matter does, their values are determined by the energy/matter interacting. The universe is all of the energy/matter.

The big bang is the beginning of our universe today --the beginning of when energy/matter come into play; but the big bang is not necessarily the beginning of it all, just the beginning of the universe as we know it today. The theory does not preclude there being something before the big bang, and if there was energy/matter, there were the same forces at work.

This is a pretty great debate:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/barker-howe.html

"Dan Barker:
Richard says that whatever has a beginning, whatever began had a cause and then he posits the answer rather than doing what science does and saying, "We don’t know. That’s what a number of possibilities recommend." He simply out of the air grabs, "if it had a beginning, it must have had a beginner." And you know what? You can’t do that ****. You are simply hypothesizing.

You are simply saying that there must be such a thing as an uncaused cause. How do you know that? How in the world can you know that there could be such a thing as an uncaused cause? You are simply positing that there must have been an uncaused cause. If you’re just going to do that, posit it with no evidence, then why not just be done with it and posit that the universe itself is an uncaused cause. Why not just do that? Why give me this…? Why try to answer one mystery with just another mystery, because the existence of God is just another mystery? An answer to nothing. If you answer one mystery with another mystery, you’d be answering nothing and you’d be still back to square one.

This becomes another example of the "God of the gaps." All through human history, we’ve had these questions. What causes thunder? What causes the lightning? I don’t know, there must be a big Thor up there that does it. [audience laughter] But now, now we’ve learned about electricity. Now we don’t need that Thor anymore. We’ve erased that God, right? "

Well, if one religion is right (and one must be, since either God exists or he doesn't) then if people follow it, they (if it's a Heaven & Hell religion) go to heaven, the others to hell, NOT everyone going to hell.
Yes, the object of a religion is mainly to go to heaven. God is vengeful and generous (more generous than vengeful), but not omni-either, since some get punished no more harshly or lightly than they deserve, and some get the ultimate goal.The Definition of "God" is Omni-whatever. If God is not "omni-either" then that entity is not God - by definition.

Ah the hypocritical denial of the Big Bang theory. Congratulations, Mr. Lagase. This is the 5,673,391,004,329th thread on this topic.

but it has been scientifically shown that life couldn't have started spontaneously on earth unless you consider 10 to the power of 40000 possible.


Really? I would like to see that study. The only study I've heard of relating to this topic involved putting the various elements present on prehistoric earth into a sealed jar and waiting until something happened. (For those of you who are actually open-minded enough to consider other ideas or who actually care about REAL scientific information, what happened was that in 3 days and 4 hours, amino acids were found in the jar. Amino acids are the basic building blocks of all life.) I rest my case.

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, a teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides.

Finding one planet able to sustain life out of all the planets in the universe is not difficult. Also the part about the moon is false, it has been moving away for some time (which is a worry) which effectively has the same effect as it being smaller in terms of forces acting on the earth.

Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe?

They are natural forces, essentialy natural reactions between substances. Things react in certain ways in the company of other things and they always will react this way.

there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing will ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all.So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion turns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in even 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it!

If the universe collapsed into itself it would form a singularity again and could therefore explode again with a slightly different composition. Going from your theory that nothing about the universe is fixed until after the bang essentialy the universe could come out as anything and keep trying until it got it right, at which stage it would stop changing because it had reached a sustainable state, therefore making the universe incredibly likely.

Now here’s my favourite. You’ve got to have slightly more matter than antimatter for the universe to have ever existed. If you have exactly the same amount they just annihilate each other, and the start of the universe would have been explosive all right, but you would be left with next to nothing. On the other hand too much matter and the universe would have collapsed so quickly after the Big Bang that no, planets, stars or galaxies could ever have formed. A variation as tiny as one part in 10 billion would have been have been enough to prevent the universe coming into existence.

See above.


Also I would be interested as to where all these figures about how unlikely the universe is came from. The big bang is an unproved theory, we don't know what the origional composition of the universe was, so how the hell can we know that a tiny change would have such a drastic effect.


Here's a question, then, what lies beyond the universe?

I've heard tell that buffalo roam out there, but supposedly time doesn't even exist out there. And that's assuming that there's only one universe and not a multiverse (some speculate that our existence is the result of two universes colliding).

Unfortuantly there is nothing outside the universe, the universe is everything (by definition). Essentialy you cannot see what is there because there is no there, the universe is creating there as it goes :) .

what does "the universe exists therefore there must be a god" have to do with religion or theology?

there is a huge leap from "god started the universe" to "accepting jesus as my personal lord and savior", isnt there? even if i accept the absurd proposal that the universe mandates the existance of an allpowerful/allknowing/allloving being, how does it mandate christianity?

or hinduism

or buddhism

or taoism

or shinto

or islam

or any other religion and its theology?

There is a higher being who only created the universe, or universes. After that, all religion is a bunch of poop. I mean, why can't I have sex before marriage? Oh yeah, some fictional thing I saw while on acid told me not to. Really, Christianity and the other main religions are just a child's dream.

Religion was created to explain the unexplainable, and now after science has been able to explain much of that and render it obsolete (i.e. Christian universe vs. Copernican universe), we don't need a higher being anymore. The only thing humans haven't been able to come up with a solution for is how we got something out of absolutely nothing. What was before the Big Bang? How did the tiny nugget of energy and bits of matter spontaneously explode? How did that energy and and matter get there in the first place? That is where a higher being comes in. Hopefully once we unify physics, we will understand and believing in God will be as foolish as believing the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe, or we are alone in the universe.

The universe and everything in it seems amazingly complex, and it is...but think of it this way: there could be an infinite number of other universes floating around in a bigger dimention of space and out of pure probablity, we exist. A neighboring universe could be exactly the same, except for the fact a neutron weighs just a teeeny bit more, throwing off the entire system. Another could be governed by completely different laws of physics. Gravity may be Antigravity. Anything could happen. We just happened to be in a universe that worked. That's almost as crazy as thinking there is some supernatural being telling us what to do and what not to do.

what does "the universe exists therefore there must be a god" have to do with religion or theology?

there is a huge leap from "god started the universe" to "accepting jesus as my personal lord and savior", isnt there? even if i accept the absurd proposal that the universe mandates the existance of an allpowerful/allknowing/allloving being, how does it mandate christianity?

or hinduism

or buddhism

or taoism

or shinto

or islam

or any other religion and its theology?

This is what he is trying to prove, that there is a god through the unlikelyness of the universe without one. As for which religion, well choose whichever one floats your boat :D

Really? I would like to see that study. The only study I've heard of relating to this topic involved putting the various elements present on prehistoric earth into a sealed jar and waiting until something happened. (For those of you who are actually open-minded enough to consider other ideas or who actually care about REAL scientific information, what happened was that in 3 days and 4 hours, amino acids were found in the jar. Amino acids are the basic building blocks of all life.) I rest my case.

The study is bull. Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) completely debunked it.

I have a question. Why do so many people adhere to the idea of God being a human fabrication?

Also, why do so many people simply assume God to be a security device or means of explanation only? Also, how does using God to explain things differ from using theoretical physics to explain things? After a while, The Elegant Universe (Book by Brian Greene, recently updated into Fabric of the Cosmos) becomes more theoretical then my religion class textbook. How can string theory, which involves either particles which cannot be found, postulates that cannot be proven, or connection which cannot be made be more plausible in nature than a God figure?

I have a question. Why do so many people adhere to the idea of God being a human fabrication?

Also, why do so many people simply assume God to be a security device or means of explanation only? Also, how does using God to explain things differ from using theoretical physics to explain things? After a while, The Elegant Universe (Book by Brian Greene, recently updated into Fabric of the Cosmos) becomes more theoretical then my religion class textbook. How can string theory, which involves either particles which cannot be found, postulates that cannot be proven, or connection which cannot be made be more plausible in nature than a God figure?
Because science has been proven right over religion in every instance in history.

I have a question. Why do so many people adhere to the idea of God being a human fabrication?
Because there's no evidence of his existence, at all.

Also, why do so many people simply assume God to be a security device or means of explanation only? Also, how does using God to explain things differ from using theoretical physics to explain things? After a while, The Elegant Universe (Book by Brian Greene, recently updated into Fabric of the Cosmos) becomes more theoretical then my religion class textbook. How can string theory, which involves either particles which cannot be found, postulates that cannot be proven, or connection which cannot be made be more plausible in nature than a God figure?

You seriously think religion is as good as science when investigating physics? Well, good luck with that.

I have a question. Why do so many people adhere to the idea of God being a human fabrication?
Because god has only two known properties: "supernatural" and "unknown". Everything else is man-made; cloaks of mythology, metaphorical images that support specific relationships with the concept of divinity.

God has a third property that is taken on faith: "being".

Also, why do so many people simply assume God to be a security device or means of explanation only? Also, how does using God to explain things differ from using theoretical physics to explain things? After a while, The Elegant Universe (Book by Brian Greene, recently updated into Fabric of the Cosmos) becomes more theoretical then my religion class textbook. How can string theory, which involves either particles which cannot be found, postulates that cannot be proven, or connection which cannot be made be more plausible in nature than a God figure?
Using the supernatural to explain things explains nothing; that doesn't stop some from hoisting it as the best solution that makes sense to them, or the best strawman to tear at religion.

Theoretical physics has a grounding in mathematical equation. I don't know any more about that, but mathematics doesn't lie.

These probably weren't helpful answers to your questions, sorry.

I have a question. Why do so many people adhere to the idea of God being a human fabrication?

Also, why do so many people simply assume God to be a security device or means of explanation only? Also, how does using God to explain things differ from using theoretical physics to explain things? After a while, The Elegant Universe (Book by Brian Greene, recently updated into Fabric of the Cosmos) becomes more theoretical then my religion class textbook. How can string theory, which involves either particles which cannot be found, postulates that cannot be proven, or connection which cannot be made be more plausible in nature than a God figure?

Well if god doesn't exist and we think he does (as large numbers of people believe) then he must be a human fabrication.

Well personaly I put little faith in experimental physics and theories. I prefer to wait until something is mostly proved to believe it. The main difference is that these theories are constantly being updated as we make more observations as to what is actualy happening. The explaination of God is a very old theory which has failed to move with the times and adapt to new information.

I have a question. Why do so many people adhere to the idea of God being a human fabrication?

Also, why do so many people simply assume God to be a security device or means of explanation only? Also, how does using God to explain things differ from using theoretical physics to explain things? After a while, The Elegant Universe (Book by Brian Greene, recently updated into Fabric of the Cosmos) becomes more theoretical then my religion class textbook. How can string theory, which involves either particles which cannot be found, postulates that cannot be proven, or connection which cannot be made be more plausible in nature than a God figure?

I'm going to post this again, here, because it's pertinant. The author, Howard Tayler, is a Webtoonist and Elder at his local Provo Utah LDS church (Meaning he is a GOOD Mormon... hardly an anti-religious zealot...) (FYI I am NOT a Mormon, I am a Deist, - but in this case he and I think mostly along the same lines.)

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Me (http://schlockmercenary.com/)
11:00am, December 20th, 2005
I'm glad to see that a Federal Judge has ruled against teaching "Intelligent Design" in Pennsylvania biology classes. Intelligent Design is not science - not even BAD science - but it is bad religion. After all, any religion that has to lie about what it is in order to sneak into the building needs to take a long hard look at some of its own tenets regarding morality and integrity.

Now, before my religious friends lynch me... I believe that God created Heaven and Earth, and that His explanation of HOW he did it, as revealed to prophets throughout the ages, is about as complete as He needs it to be. More divine revelation as to His Methods and Means would not make any of us mortals more faithful. After all, most of us pay little enough attention to the revelations that have already been given.

So here I am, devoutly religious, and I detest "Intelligent Design." The ONLY bit about it with which I agree is some of the disclaimer text which the creationists (let's call them what they are, shall we?) want to apply to Evolution: It's a theory, not a fact.

Facts are directly observable and measurable. Fact: we have found fossils. Fact: we have observed the chemical processes by which fossils can be created. Fact: we have observed changes in the genetic makeup of certain populations of animals. Fact: we have observed and demonstrated the mechanics by which genes are expressed, and how they can be damaged through natural events.

We have a very long list of similar facts, and right now the only theory that unifies these into a consistent description of the world in which we live is evolution through random mutation and natural selection. That is not the same as saying that the theory is itself a fact. Sure, we've "proven" that Evolution explains things better than competing theories, but that is still not the same thing as saying "Evolution is a fact." Are there holes in the current theories? Absolutely. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm not casting aspersions on science. Evolution is some darn good science. It's tricky, you know, examining the fossil record and the living world and coming up with a description for what happened during the last half a billion years. It's a little bit like feeding a dictionary into a wood-chipper, and then attempting to re-create the book by observing just one piece out of every 1000 and extrapolating from there. A LOT of things happened on this planet during its history, and the vast majority of them left no discernable trace that we can read today. Scientists work HARD to fill in the gaps, and to make our lives better by theorizing, testing their theories through experimentation, and then refining their theories.

But for all their strengths, the scientific methods we use don't work well when applied to the description or improvement of the moral codes by which we live. Religion (and by religion I do NOT mean "orthodox heirarchical power structures" -- I mean "community and individual spirituality") DOES work well in this way. Sure, lots of people disagree with the concept of moral absolutes, but it's hard to argue with somebody who has found happiness through adherence to a spiritual and moral code. It can be argued, after all, that the purpose of life is to learn to live happily.

Is there some paradox here? Mightn't Evolution suggest that God was lying, or that Moses was lying, or that religion is a sham? Well, certainly it COULD suggest that, but I don't treat it that way. I believe that eventually our science will be good enough that we can explain to God how we think He did it, and He'll say "Great job! You get an A! It would have been an A+, but you left 'Dark Energy' in place as a fudge factor. Now here's a nebula full of hydrogen. Show Me what you can build." Until then, however, I'm not going to use the book of Genesis as a template for a scientific theory. The answers may be in The Book, but we're expected to show our work. That's the only way that we can enjoy the fruits of DOING the work.

Let me explain it more simply: My faith enables me to live happily. Science and technology enable me to live LONGER. I don't want to see science used to discredit religion, because that will make people live LESS happily, and I don't want to see religion used to discredit science, because that will further delay the delivery of my flying car. If this simple dichotomy can be honestly and openly explained to our children, they can embrace the apparent paradox, and get on with the important things in life: being happy, and figuring out how to build me a jetpack. It's 2005, for heaven's sake. I was supposed to have a silica farm on the moon twenty years ago, and I can't even get my replicator-bots onto the roof of the house.

*NOTE: Big E, Little e, What Begins With "E"? By way of clarification in the essay above. Big 'E' Evolution is the theory that life evolved gradually from self-replicating protein chains. Little 'e' evolution is the observable process by which (for instance) strains of bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. I can't remember where I first got this particular nomenclature, but it works pretty well for essays. It works astoundingly poorly in conversation, because the statement "Evolution is only a theory" is indistinguishable from the statement "evolution is only a theory," and one of those two statements is patently false. I suppose you can make the capitalization heard by shouting, but that's what I'm hoping we'll avoid.

In short - Work with what is Observable - you'll live longer. Believe in somthing - you'll be happier.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?
"eternal" ?
so says some book that we don't even know if its fiction or not. its your gospel, your vision of the truth, not mine.

ergo, god may - or may not be - eternal, depending on whether you choose to accept some dusty old book as the truth.


the only sound, reliable proof against theology is that there is no sound, reliable proof for theology.

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, a teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides.
Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing will ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all.
So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion turns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in even 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it!
And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. Laugh at the joke, please. It’s FUNNY. One false move and it's all over.
Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance.
What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.
What about atoms? You’ve got to have atoms to have anything existing. Atoms need precise relationships between protons and electrons and neutrons. A proton is 1836 times bigger than an electron, for example. A little messing with that number and the universe would never have formed. The remarkable thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible.
Now here’s my favourite. You’ve got to have slightly more matter than antimatter for the universe to have ever existed. If you have exactly the same amount they just annihilate each other, and the start of the universe would have been explosive all right, but you would be left with next to nothing. On the other hand too much matter and the universe would have collapsed so quickly after the Big Bang that no, planets, stars or galaxies could ever have formed. A variation as tiny as one part in 10 billion would have been have been enough to prevent the universe coming into existence.
OK, well, you can’t have life on our planet without carbon and oxygen. They’re created by burning hydrogen and helium inside stars. This is a bit complicated, but in the 1950’s they discovered that a couple of percentage points either way in the reaction and carbon would never have existed. Carbon is a stunning shock development. We’re carbon. So no carbon equals no us. If the oxygen resonance level were only half a percent higher, we’d get the same result.
Many, many scientists (for instance, Sir Hoyle, Stephen Hawking) have been converted to Christianity by their own shocking discoveries.

Largely Copyright © 2004 by Adrian Holloway

This writing is all about how fine-tuned and perfect are universe is. It is unbelievably unlikely that our universe would reach this age and be inhabitable!!

Explains deism too?

This writing is all about how fine-tuned and perfect are universe is. It is unbelievably unlikely that our universe would reach this age and be inhabitable!!

this is why we exist. if this were not the case we wouldn't be standing here, alive, to question it.

its just another way of looking at the same thing (and also a way that doesn't put us, humans, at the centre of the universe, metaphorically speaking)

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?

Those you refer to as 'rejecting' religion... can equally be argued as simply not accepting religion.

Can you give a "proper" reason why someone should accept religion?

Bear in mind, of course, that anything you claim as a "proper" reason, must be equally true for ALL religions... since you are apparently expecting a reason why all religions might be 'rejected'.

Your question of "how something can come from nothing" is a nonsense. First - because you have no way to prove there was ever "nothing".... Second - because 'reality' can be eternal, if 'god' can.

Those you refer to as 'rejecting' religion... can equally be argued as simply not accepting religion.

Can you give a "proper" reason why someone should accept religion?

Bear in mind, of course, that anything you claim as a "proper" reason, must be equally true for ALL religions... since you are apparently expecting a reason why all religions might be 'rejected'.

Your question of "how something can come from nothing" is a nonsense. First - because you have no way to prove there was ever "nothing".... Second - because 'reality' can be eternal, if 'god' can.

Because people who believe tend to live longer? That a good enough reason for ya?

Seriously speaking, though, there is no evidence that there is no god (or gods) and there is no evidence that there is a god (or gods). Everything we have could go either way.

The only question is, do you want to believe humans are the result of something occuring against all odds or do you want to believe that humans are the result of some omnipotent entity creating a universe perfect for life as we know it? There's no evidence for either explanation, and that neither one requires evidence or might even be capable of generating evidence, means that there's no way to be certain.

The only question is: Do you want to believe, or don't you? Everything else is commentary and unimportant.

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, a teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides.
Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing will ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all.
So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion turns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in even 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it!
And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. Laugh at the joke, please. It’s FUNNY. One false move and it's all over.
Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance.
What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.
What about atoms? You’ve got to have atoms to have anything existing. Atoms need precise relationships between protons and electrons and neutrons. A proton is 1836 times bigger than an electron, for example. A little messing with that number and the universe would never have formed. The remarkable thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible.
Now here’s my favourite. You’ve got to have slightly more matter than antimatter for the universe to have ever existed. If you have exactly the same amount they just annihilate each other, and the start of the universe would have been explosive all right, but you would be left with next to nothing. On the other hand too much matter and the universe would have collapsed so quickly after the Big Bang that no, planets, stars or galaxies could ever have formed. A variation as tiny as one part in 10 billion would have been have been enough to prevent the universe coming into existence.
OK, well, you can’t have life on our planet without carbon and oxygen. They’re created by burning hydrogen and helium inside stars. This is a bit complicated, but in the 1950’s they discovered that a couple of percentage points either way in the reaction and carbon would never have existed. Carbon is a stunning shock development. We’re carbon. So no carbon equals no us. If the oxygen resonance level were only half a percent higher, we’d get the same result.
Many, many scientists (for instance, Sir Hoyle, Stephen Hawking) have been converted to Christianity by their own shocking discoveries.

Largely Copyright © 2004 by Adrian Holloway

This writing is all about how fine-tuned and perfect are universe is. It is unbelievably unlikely that our universe would reach this age and be inhabitable!!


This line of reasoning only makes sense if you assume that the goal of the universe is to create conditions suitable to habitation.

I think you can prove that god is the most likely explanation for creation of the universe, though I don't think you can prove that it is definitely the explanation of the creation of the universe. That last line of your article about converting to Christianity shows complete ignorance. Proving that there is a god !=! proving Christianity. Belief in a god is not so absurd, but there is a huge, huge difference between belief in a divine clockmaker theory and belief in a Christian god. The fact that people jump from "god probably exists" to "whoamg the bible is teh inspired by god and infallible!" boggles me.

Because people who believe tend to live longer? That a good enough reason for ya?

Seriously speaking, though, there is no evidence that there is no god (or gods) and there is no evidence that there is a god (or gods). Everything we have could go either way.

The only question is, do you want to believe humans are the result of something occuring against all odds or do you want to believe that humans are the result of some omnipotent entity creating a universe perfect for life as we know it? There's no evidence for either explanation, and that neither one requires evidence or might even be capable of generating evidence, means that there's no way to be certain.

The only question is: Do you want to believe, or don't you? Everything else is commentary and unimportant.

Meh.

Using Occam's Razor it requires less assumptions to believe that we are alive by chance and so that is the more reasonable answer. Should fresh evidence emerge then this must be taken into consideration but until that time I will continue to view God/Allah/Vishnu/the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be non-existent until proven otherwise.

Incidently, you seem to be arguing that the only reason to be religous is that you don't like the idea of being insignificant on a galactic scale. This sounds like the ad personam fallacy to me.

Finally, there is no proof either way. And if there were proof either way, we would know more facts about this creator and have less myth. We don't.
And that's a good thing. We don't want to know about the supernatural. We don't want proof. We are natural, and knowledge of the supernatural would be ...unnatural. That's a bad thing.

This is why we make myth to describe the supernatural in image, in stories and statues. With myth, we can weave a natural way through the supernatural. Metaphor is the language of myth (can you find the metaphor in my paragraph? ;)).

What we need is more myth, meaningful myth for the modern era that helps us weave a new path through the supernatural that is significant for the modern man. Instead, it seems we prefer to misunderstand, dismiss and undermine the supernatural in our lives. Our loss.

And that's a good thing. We don't want to know about the supernatural. We don't want proof. We are natural, and knowledge of the supernatural would be ...unnatural. That's a bad thing.

This is why we make myth to describe the supernatural in image, in stories and statues. With myth, we can weave a natural way through the supernatural. Metaphor is the language of myth (can you find the metaphor in my paragraph? ;)).

What we need is more myth, meaningful myth for the modern era that helps us weave a new path through the supernatural that is significant for the modern man. Instead, it seems we prefer to misunderstand, dismiss and undermine the supernatural in our lives. Our loss.

You could say a lot of the new scientific theories are modern myth, they are an explaination of the facts we now know, with what we think might have happened to fill in the gaps, just like the old myths, we just know more now, and the myths are much more complex.

You could say a lot of the new scientific theories are modern myth, they are an explaination of the facts we now know, with what we think might have happened to fill in the gaps, just like the old myths, we just know more now, and the myths are much more complex.

Well, yeah - that and the fact that the 'new myths' are literally as well as figuratively true...

You could say a lot of the new scientific theories are modern myth, they are an explaination of the facts we now know, with what we think might have happened to fill in the gaps, just like the old myths, we just know more now, and the myths are much more complex.
Explanations and facts about things that are known are all well and good, but myth's purpose is to help us build a relationship to the supernatural (that which is unknown and unknowable).

Elgesh']Well, yeah - that and the fact that the 'new myths' are literally as well as figuratively true...

Not all. There are pleanty of theories about how something might work which we dont know for certain yet. The big bang is a theory, we have no actual proof that it happened, it fits the facts we know at the moment but then so did the earth being flat when that was believed.

Not all. There are pleanty of theories about how something might work which we dont know for certain yet. The big bang is a theory, we have no actual proof that it happened, it fits the facts we know at the moment but then so did the earth being flat when that was believed.

But that's the beauty of the 'new myths' - they change. They're constantly reviewed. When new evidence is found, the theory changes. They're not static, they're not pointing you in the direction of an analogy to an abstract concept, they're the literal truth - they're so concerned with this, that they're rewrittten, even discarded, if they're later found wanting. That's the difference between myths and scientific thought.

Elgesh']But that's the beauty of the 'new myths' - they change. They're constantly reviewed. When new evidence is found, the theory changes. They're not static, they're not pointing you in the direction of an analogy to an abstract concept, they're the literal truth - they're so concerned with this, that they're rewrittten, even discarded, if they're later found wanting. That's the difference between myths and scientific thought.

They aren't the literal truth they are our interpretation of it. I'm not saying that they are the same as old myth and I'm not attacking scientific process, I'm just saying these are the modern day versions of myths which have more logic and backing than the old myths because it is necissary for modern people to accept them.

This is what he is trying to prove, that there is a god through the unlikelyness of the universe without one. As for which religion, well choose whichever one floats your boat :D
but why should i worship something just because it started the universe? what if its dead now? what if it was a freaking accident? what if it finds worship offensive? what if it is EVIL?

but why should i worship something just because it started the universe? what if its dead now? what if it was a freaking accident? what if it finds worship offensive? what if it is EVIL?

Hahaha I can just imagine that, "Oh crap I just spilled existence everywhere, ahh I cant be bothered cleaning it up". Well you just have to take a gamble and hope.

Who created God ? But then, who created the dust in the Big-Bang theory ?
buuuut.... Who created the thing that created the things that create things that create things like this ?

Elgesh']But that's the beauty of the 'new myths' - they change. They're constantly reviewed. When new evidence is found, the theory changes. They're not static, they're not pointing you in the direction of an analogy to an abstract concept, they're the literal truth - they're so concerned with this, that they're rewrittten, even discarded, if they're later found wanting. That's the difference between myths and scientific thought.
Theories are not myths.

Especially scientific theories.

They aren't the literal truth they are our interpretation of it. I'm not saying that they are the same as old myth and I'm not attacking scientific process, I'm just saying these are the modern day versions of myths which have more logic and backing than the old myths because it is necissary for modern people to accept them.
What are "the modern day versions of myths which have more logic and backing to them"?

I get tired of arguing my point. So to sum up all my views...
Insightful View of the Universe (http://www.vhtrc.org/fourplay/2003/coyote-poop.jpg)

What are "the modern day versions of myths which have more logic and backing to them"?

Scientific theories. They attempt to fill the same gap of explaining how we came to exist and why this or that happens but are more believeable to modern people.

I get tired of arguing my point. So to sum up all my views...
Ahh... physical evidence of the creator (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/coyote.html). Well done.

Scientific theories. They attempt to fill the same gap of explaining how we came to exist and why this or that happens but are more believeable to modern people.
I have to disagree, then. Scientific theories do not broach the subject of how existence came to be --that is a topic for philosophy. They simply define the world that is.

And ancient myths do not explain the physical world, as science does. They speak to our spirits, of the spiritual world. Take this, for example:
Great Heaven came, and with him brought the night
Longing for love, he lay around the Earth,
Spreading out fully. But the hidden boy
Streched forth his left hand; in his right he took
The great long jagged sickle; eagerly
He harvested his father's genitals
And threw them off behind. They did not fall
From his hands in vain, for all the blood drops
That leaped out were received by Earth; and when
the year's time was accomplished, she gave birth
To the Furies, and the Giants, strong and huge,
Who fought in shining armour, with long spears,
And the nymphs called Maliae on the broad earth.
This is not a story of how literal Furies, Giants and Maliae came into being, as those things do not really exist.

To refer to scientific theories as myth is a gross inaccuracy, in either sense of the word "myth".

And ancient myths do not explain the physical world, as science does. They speak to our spirits, of the spiritual world. Take this, for example:

This is not a story of how literal Furies, Giants and Maliae came into being, as those things do not really exist.

To refer to scientific theories as myth is a gross inaccuracy, in either sense of the word "myth".

I was thinking more of stories like this http://www.fables.org/autumn04/maui.html (sorry it is quite long). It explains how it is that sticks can be rubbed together to make fire.

"He harvested his father's genitals"
.......ouch.

The problems this author has in his writing are that you cannot change one variable without a flow on effect, to the other variables involved.
We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, a teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides.

Changing the size or orbit of the moon -could- mean we would be flooded by tides. But a change in size would have meant the moon would be in a different orbit, It would either have fallen back to earth or escaped the earth's gravity to an orbit further way from the earth. Either way there is no way to determine what the follow on effects would have been. IF you actually sit and do the maths on every combination of the mass of the moon, the size of the moon and it's orbit you'll find that there are many combinations of these that would produce similar tidal effects to what we currently have. In fact there may be a feedback loop that ensures that the moon has to be in such an orbit. There are plenty of combinations that would also rip the earth apart. There fail to take into account that the earth is far more affected by it's own gravity then that of the moon. Also the moon is much more likely then the earth to be torn apart by strong tidal forces. And as a final nail in the coffin of his statement, The orbit itself is the MOST likely component of the earth/moon/orbit equation to the altered by these massive tidal forces. that would mean the earth would literally pull the moon into a stable orbit out of one that produced such strong forces, or the moon would escape to a higher orbit with a similar tidal effect.


Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing will ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all.
So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion turns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in even 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it!
The singularity that eventuated into the big bang was most likely a super-symmetrical 10 dimensional universe. There is at least a mathematic description for this. In fact it may have only been a part of that 10 dimensional super symmetrical universe. Then something happened 6 of the dimensions appear to have collapsed causing the other 3 to rapidly expand as they continue to do today. This collapse released vast amounts of energy. This energy superheats the vacuum which is created by the expansion. I have a book that describes what happens when you super heat a finite space with near infinity amounts of energy. Matter basically condenses out of the energy. At first it is in Equal portions of matter and anti-matter. What happens as the heat goes up is a series of quantum reactions that result in most of the anti-matter being destroyed. The speed of expansion is set by the energy that caused the explosion. The amount of matter is also set by the amount of energy. So it seems that a faster explosion would have created more matter, thus a greater force of gravity to slow the explosion down. Less energy, less matter, less gravity, slower slow down. Again it is not unlikely, it is probable.


And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. Laugh at the joke, please. It’s FUNNY. One false move and it's all over.
We do not really know enough about the way these force work together to accept this statement or reject it, but there is tentative mathematical evidence that the four forces have a common cause (Grand United Theory and superstring theory). Thus the "balance" is probably more akin to a gyroscope then a hippo on the Niagra Falls, with each force reacting in a dynamic manner to the other three.


Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance.
As stated above a change in gravity would have a flow through effect to other forces. Besides life on earth is more dependant on the stars that existed in the region before our sun. All it was "waiting" for was a planet with the right conditions. Had the sun been smaller it could be Venus, larger it could be Mars. We have little information about how planets such as the Earth come into being but as new technologies that allow us to study planets orbiting other stars becomes available it will mean we will be able to start looking for them. It may in fact just require the right elements to accrue at an appropriate distance from the star. The requisite distance could be controlled by the temperature and the gravity or the star rather then the star itself.

What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do. Most likely stars that form helium would be hotter, or cooler. Hydrogen, forms a star by gravitational means. When it gets to a size which puts the right amount of force on the atoms to start fission the star starts burning. Less strong force would mean that stars would have to build up more hydrogen before sustained combustion started, More Weak force would mean the stars would be smaller.


What about atoms? You’ve got to have atoms to have anything existing. Atoms need precise relationships between protons and electrons and neutrons. A proton is 1836 times bigger than an electron, for example. A little messing with that number and the universe would never have formed. The remarkable thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible.
What other changes would be made by changing any of an electrons variables? Also electrons and protons are both "made" of the same "stuff", as are neutrons. Any attempt to make a universe in which electrons behave differently would also cause the proton to act differently.

Now here’s my favourite. You’ve got to have slightly more matter than antimatter for the universe to have ever existed. If you have exactly the same amount they just annihilate each other, and the start of the universe would have been explosive all right, but you would be left with next to nothing. On the other hand too much matter and the universe would have collapsed so quickly after the Big Bang that no, planets, stars or galaxies could ever have formed. A variation as tiny as one part in 10 billion would have been have been enough to prevent the universe coming into existence.
Explained above.

OK, well, you can’t have life on our planet without carbon and oxygen. They’re created by burning hydrogen and helium inside stars. This is a bit complicated, but in the 1950’s they discovered that a couple of percentage points either way in the reaction and carbon would never have existed. Carbon is a stunning shock development. We’re carbon. So no carbon equals no us. If the oxygen resonance level were only half a percent higher, we’d get the same result.The argument comes from the difficultly in producing carbon using fusion. Three Helium atoms have to collide and stick together long enough to fuse. The energy required to do this is a very specific level. There is a scientific word for it and the value is approx. 6.7 (or some such similar number) Now when three helium atoms collide the energy needed is short of this figure. but through an amazing coincidence the stars that produce carbon through fusion do so at a that makes up the shortfall. No people try to point out that changing this constant that carbon requires means these suns would not produce carbon, thus no life, OMG that mus m3an their is a god!!!1!11. The error to this logic is that the stars that create carbon, do not do it coincidentally. They are "burning" the helium. The stars will always make up the short fall in the energy requirement to create carbon because that is what the star is doing, fusing helium to form carbon. It's like being amazed that the a fire burns at just the right temperature to burn wood.

- A long post about who unlikely it is to have a world like this one

You, just like most of creationists, approach the question from totally wrong direction. The same mistake has been made by many of you opponents in this thread too, though.

The thing is, our world is not any final goal or something that was targeted when trying to create life.

See, it really is quite damn unlikely to have the incredible nature we have on this planet, all the species and lifeforms and even the human mind. All those are magnificent things, and ver unlikely to happen. However, when you have more time than you can imagine, billions of years, billions of stars, hundreds and thousands of billions of planets, it is quite damn likely we will end up with something! This time it happened to be like this.

You talk about how there would be no life if our Earth would be just a bit further or closer of the Sun. I daresay you're wrong. There would, or atleast could be life.

You judge the situation by thinking that as our current ecosystem couldn't survive there would be no life at all. Again, the fundamental misunderstanding. It's like taking a cat, putting it under the water, seeing it dying and claiming that there can be no life under the surface. Instead, those lifeforms have managed to survive in enviroment that is impossible to you, because they have been born in there.



One last example: You meet the girl of your life in a vacation, in Brazil, in a basketball game, and that is because she comes to laugh at you because of your funny-looking t-shirt. Incredibly unlikely. God must have had his fingers in it, or how else could you explain it? That all the factors, the game, the country, the timing, the shirt - all matched!


But when you look at the statistics, vaist majority of people meet someone they fall in love to, in some point of their life. Majority of western males see some sort of a sport game during their lifetime. Majority keeps t-shirt in Brazil due the heat. And so on. It just happened to be that girl.

It just happened to be this human race.

Because people who believe tend to live longer? That a good enough reason for ya?

Seriously speaking, though, there is no evidence that there is no god (or gods) and there is no evidence that there is a god (or gods). Everything we have could go either way.

The only question is, do you want to believe humans are the result of something occuring against all odds or do you want to believe that humans are the result of some omnipotent entity creating a universe perfect for life as we know it? There's no evidence for either explanation, and that neither one requires evidence or might even be capable of generating evidence, means that there's no way to be certain.

The only question is: Do you want to believe, or don't you? Everything else is commentary and unimportant.

What you 'want' should not make ANY decisions for you.... that is just illogical.

What flavour is my ice-cream? Well, I want it to be Coffee...

So - what flavour IS it? DOes my 'want' affect it? Is it logical to believe my 'want' has any impact at all?

Do I 'want' to believe that we are a special entity, constructed as somehow superior? Not really... I don't seek that kind of external validation.

DO I 'want' to believe that we are the result of millions of years of fairly simplistic gene modification, from much more humble beginnings? Not really... it makes little difference to me where I came from.... it seems MUCH more important, where I AM.

So - which do I 'believe'.... neither, really... but the evidence seems to suggest the latter.

You, just like most of creationists, approach the question from totally wrong direction. The same mistake has been made by many of you opponents in this thread too, though.

The thing is, our world is not any final goal or something that was targeted when trying to create life.

See, it really is quite damn unlikely to have the incredible nature we have on this planet, all the species and lifeforms and even the human mind. All those are magnificent things, and ver unlikely to happen. However, when you have more time than you can imagine, billions of years, billions of stars, hundreds and thousands of billions of planets, it is quite damn likely we will end up with something! This time it happened to be like this.

You talk about how there would be no life if our Earth would be just a bit further or closer of the Sun. I daresay you're wrong. There would, or atleast could be life.

You judge the situation by thinking that as our current ecosystem couldn't survive there would be no life at all. Again, the fundamental misunderstanding. It's like taking a cat, putting it under the water, seeing it dying and claiming that there can be no life under the surface. Instead, those lifeforms have managed to survive in enviroment that is impossible to you, because they have been born in there.



One last example: You meet the girl of your life in a vacation, in Brazil, in a basketball game, and that is because she comes to laugh at you because of your funny-looking t-shirt. Incredibly unlikely. God must have had his fingers in it, or how else could you explain it? That all the factors, the game, the country, the timing, the shirt - all matched!


But when you look at the statistics, vaist majority of people meet someone they fall in love to, in some point of their life. Majority of western males see some sort of a sport game during their lifetime. Majority keeps t-shirt in Brazil due the heat. And so on. It just happened to be that girl.

It just happened to be this human race.

I agree. The creation of the universe is like rolling 10 six-sided dies all at once. The odss of any given combination of those numbers are slim. Just because the odds are slim does not mean that when I threw those 10 dice, that they did not occur in the way that they did. Creation being just what is needed for life to flourish is like rolling 6s on all those 10,000 dice. When we look at it from a human point of view, that fact seems rather remarkable and unlikely. However, everything turning up as 6s has the same mathematical probability of any other result for those 10 dice. It is only when trying to interpret it from a non-mathematical view that a reult of 10 6s is more unlikely than an exact result of, say, 2, 4, 5, 6, 2, 1, 3, 4, 6 ,3 in that order. It is only through human interpretation that the 10 6s become any more special than the afforementioned numbers.

We need to be protected from ultraviolet light, infra-red heat and meteorites from above, and incineration from the core below. If we were a bit closer to the sun we'd fry, a teeny bit further away we'd freeze. If the moon was slightly bigger or had a slightly different orbit, we'd be flooded by the tides.
Take the Big Bang model. Have you ever thought how many different forces you need to magically exist for no apparent reason on one day to get the universe? The real sensation is the relationships between them. The show-stopper is the ratios. It turns out there has to be the most exquisitely delicately balanced of competing forces at the very start of the universe for anything to exist. Just imagine that at one time, all the matter in the universe was compressed into one tiny speck. Well, where did that come from? And there was this thing called quantum fluctuation. Why should quantum mechanics exist? Anywhere, then there's this incredibly unlikely explosion, which causes all the matter to fly outwards at a perfectly controlled speed. Too fast and nothing will ever settle down and start making an existence in the universe. Too slow and it'll never properly get going at all.
So, the universe expands, but the speed of expnsion turns out to be critical. It's slowing down at just about the rate it expands. If it slowed down too much the universe would collapse on itself. If the rate of expansion one second after the Big bang had been smaller by even one part in even 100,000,000,000 the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. The likelyhood of the forces of expansion and contraction being as perfectly balanced as they are is like aiming at a one-inch target on the other sie of the universe and hitting it!
And it must be our lucky day because the four fundamental forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear forcw - have all turned up right on cue. The fact that they all go to the bother of existing is all a mystery. But then we find that they are perfectly interrelated and balance like a hippo tiptoeing across Niagra Falls. Laugh at the joke, please. It’s FUNNY. One false move and it's all over.
Take stars in the sky. They're held together by gravity, but at the same time energy flows out of each star by electromagnetic radiation. To get our sun, for example, you have to have thes to forces perfectly balanced - again. It has been confirmed that if gravity were altered by a mere one part in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars like the sun would not exist, nor would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance.
What's more, the balance between strong and weak forces is cunningly precise. A tad less of the strong, and the whole universe would consist of hydrogen. A tad more of the weak, and all that hydrogen would be helium. Again, no good. Only a narrow definite ratio will do.
What about atoms? You’ve got to have atoms to have anything existing. Atoms need precise relationships between protons and electrons and neutrons. A proton is 1836 times bigger than an electron, for example. A little messing with that number and the universe would never have formed. The remarkable thing is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible.
Now here’s my favourite. You’ve got to have slightly more matter than antimatter for the universe to have ever existed. If you have exactly the same amount they just annihilate each other, and the start of the universe would have been explosive all right, but you would be left with next to nothing. On the other hand too much matter and the universe would have collapsed so quickly after the Big Bang that no, planets, stars or galaxies could ever have formed. A variation as tiny as one part in 10 billion would have been have been enough to prevent the universe coming into existence.
OK, well, you can’t have life on our planet without carbon and oxygen. They’re created by burning hydrogen and helium inside stars. This is a bit complicated, but in the 1950’s they discovered that a couple of percentage points either way in the reaction and carbon would never have existed. Carbon is a stunning shock development. We’re carbon. So no carbon equals no us. If the oxygen resonance level were only half a percent higher, we’d get the same result.
Many, many scientists (for instance, Sir Hoyle, Stephen Hawking) have been converted to Christianity by their own shocking discoveries.

Largely Copyright © 2004 by Adrian Holloway

This writing is all about how fine-tuned and perfect are universe is. It is unbelievably unlikely that our universe would reach this age and be inhabitable!!
You can't riff about improbabilites and probabilities in the same rant to have them work and then not work for you.
It is *EXTREMELY* improbable that you have ALL the variables to qualify your stance on
1)habitability (BTW, there is already a measure for the GHZ, look it up)
2)probability of universal manifest characteristics, or even anthropic/ intelligent life formulae, as used in the Drake Equation.
3)The anthropic principle itself, as you appear to be inferring it, apparently works here in that it is perfect as is because we can see it that way and therefore it is fine tuned and deliberate.
4)Although we use the best info we can about inference of universal age, there is still serious discrepency in the expansion factor, and Bob Bless Us, we're gonna find out a little more in 2007 when they get the LHC online.
It's a *shlupping* sound that i'll take to my mausoleum.

How many planets are there in the universe?

Let's see, if it's a one in quintillion chance that all the variables would turn out capable of supporting life as we know it, then (on average, if you checked across multiple universes) one in every quintillion planets will have people going "Whoa, our existence is so unlikely! It must have been elves/unicorns/Motorola/god!"

But it only takes one freak accident to create people who will say, "This freak accident could not have happened on its own!" Yeah, well, that's bullshit. It's a one in [some very large number] chance that a coin toss will leave the coin balanced on its edge, but I know I've seen it happen. That doesn't mean any deities were holding it up, it just means that given the way chance and large numbers work together, if something is physically possible it is likely to have happened, somewhere, sometime.

Maybe help, maybe not.

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

Well, we have no evidence whatsoever of a hypothetical imaginary universe.
You're not quite right on that one.

http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html

...What are the ultimate degrees of freedom? Atoms, after all, are made of electrons and nuclei, nuclei are agglomerations of protons and neutrons, and those in turn are composed of quarks. Many physicists today consider electrons and quarks to be excitations of superstrings, which they hypothesize to be the most fundamental entities. But the vicissitudes of a century of revelations in physics warn us not to be dogmatic. There could be more levels of structure in our universe than are dreamt of in today's physics.

One cannot calculate the ultimate information capacity of a chunk of matter or, equivalently, its true thermodynamic entropy, without knowing the nature of the ultimate constituents of matter or of the deepest level of structure, which I shall refer to as level X. (This ambiguity causes no problems in analyzing practical thermodynamics, such as that of car engines, for example, because the quarks within the atoms can be ignored--they do not change their states under the relatively benign conditions in the engine.) Given the dizzying progress in miniaturization, one can playfully contemplate a day when quarks will serve to store information, one bit apiece perhaps. How much information would then fit into our one-centimeter cube? And how much if we harness superstrings or even deeper, yet undreamt of levels? Surprisingly, developments in gravitation physics in the past three decades have supplied some clear answers to what seem to be elusive questions.
The information content of a pile of computer chips increases in proportion with the number of chips or, equivalently, the volume they occupy. That simple rule must break down for a large enough pile of chips because eventually the information would exceed the holographic bound, which depends on the surface area, not the volume. The "breakdown" occurs when the immense pile of chips collapses to form a black hole.

Black Hole Thermodynamics

A central player in these developments is the black hole. Black holes are a consequence of general relativity, Albert Einstein's 1915 geometric theory of gravitation. In this theory, gravitation arises from the curvature of spacetime, which makes objects move as if they were pulled by a force. Conversely, the curvature is caused by the presence of matter and energy. According to Einstein's equations, a sufficiently dense concentration of matter or energy will curve spacetime so extremely that it rends, forming a black hole. The laws of relativity forbid anything that went into a black hole from coming out again, at least within the classical (nonquantum) description of the physics. The point of no return, called the event horizon of the black hole, is of crucial importance. In the simplest case, the horizon is a sphere, whose surface area is larger for more massive black holes.

It is impossible to determine what is inside a black hole. No detailed information can emerge across the horizon and escape into the outside world. In disappearing forever into a black hole, however, a piece of matter does leave some traces. Its energy (we count any mass as energy in accordance with Einstein's E = mc2) is permanently reflected in an increment in the black hole's mass. If the matter is captured while circling the hole, its associated angular momentum is added to the black hole's angular momentum. Both the mass and angular momentum of a black hole are measurable from their effects on spacetime around the hole. In this way, the laws of conservation of energy and angular momentum are upheld by black holes. Another fundamental law, the second law of thermodynamics, appears to be violated.
...
A Universe Painted on Its Boundary

Can we apply the holographic principle to the universe at large? The real universe is a 4-D system: it has volume and extends in time. If the physics of our universe is holographic, there would be an alternative set of physical laws, operating on a 3-D boundary of spacetime somewhere, that would be equivalent to our known 4-D physics. We do not yet know of any such 3-D theory that works in that way. Indeed, what surface should we use as the boundary of the universe? One step toward realizing these ideas is to study models that are simpler than our real universe.

A class of concrete examples of the holographic principle at work involves so-called anti-de Sitter spacetimes. The original de Sitter spacetime is a model universe first obtained by Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter in 1917 as a solution of Einstein's equations, including the repulsive force known as the cosmological constant. De Sitter's spacetime is empty, expands at an accelerating rate and is very highly symmetrical. In 1997 astronomers studying distant supernova explosions concluded that our universe now expands in an accelerated fashion and will probably become increasingly like a de Sitter spacetime in the future. Now, if the repulsion in Einstein's equations is changed to attraction, de Sitter's solution turns into the anti-de Sitter spacetime, which has equally as much symmetry. More important for the holographic concept, it possesses a boundary, which is located "at infinity" and is a lot like our everyday spacetime.

Using anti-de Sitter spacetime, theorists have devised a concrete example of the holographic principle at work: a universe described by superstring theory functioning in an anti-de Sitter spacetime is completely equivalent to a quantum field theory operating on the boundary of that spacetime [see box above]. Thus, the full majesty of superstring theory in an anti-de Sitter universe is painted on the boundary of the universe. Juan Maldacena, then at Harvard University, first conjectured such a relation in 1997 for the 5-D anti-de Sitter case, and it was later confirmed for many situations by Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and Steven S. Gubser, Igor R. Klebanov and Alexander M. Polyakov of Princeton University. Examples of this holographic correspondence are now known for spacetimes with a variety of dimensions.

This result means that two ostensibly very different theories--not even acting in spaces of the same dimension--are equivalent. Creatures living in one of these universes would be incapable of determining if they inhabited a 5-D universe described by string theory or a 4-D one described by a quantum field theory of point particles. (Of course, the structures of their brains might give them an overwhelming "commonsense" prejudice in favor of one description or another, in just the way that our brains construct an innate perception that our universe has three spatial dimensions; see the illustration on the opposite page.)

The holographic equivalence can allow a difficult calculation in the 4-D boundary spacetime, such as the behavior of quarks and gluons, to be traded for another, easier calculation in the highly symmetric, 5-D anti-de Sitter spacetime. The correspondence works the other way, too. Witten has shown that a black hole in anti-de Sitter spacetime corresponds to hot radiation in the alternative physics operating on the bounding spacetime. The entropy of the hole--a deeply mysterious concept--equals the radiation's entropy, which is quite mundane.

Creating and designing it!
And the proof reads all over the place ... like the fjords, for example ...
they read, "Slartibartfast"

And the proof reads all over the place ... like the fjords, for example ...
they read, "Slartibartfast"

Especially the little fiddly-bits... they were always his favourites.

He got an award for them, you know?

Paragraph one's reply: What makes you think that?? I won't go into the details (unless you ask me) but it has been scientifically shown that life couldn't have started spontaneously on earth unless you consider 10 to the power of 40000 possible.

Paragraph 2: I know, it's a shame. Terrorists led by religion to killing aren't very nice, I realise.

Paragraph 3: A god is necessary to save/care for/be ignored by people. And... describe what?

This might help ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

A primordial protoplasmic globule
So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28].

The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12].
Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle [3, 5, 15, 26, 28]. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator [24]. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles [9].

No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.
Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

The myth of the "life sequence"
Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.

This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism [20]. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins [20]. Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still [4], and preceded by even simpler chemical systems [3, 10, 11, 15].

As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

The "life sequence" is a myth.

Coin tossing for beginners and macromolecular assembly
So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above [7]. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator [10], the SunY self-replicator [24] or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group [12], but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.

1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates [2,15].

Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.

So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 1024 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 1027 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks [14,16].

So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

Search spaces, or how many needles in the haystack?
So I've shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest. Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small.

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].

Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup.

So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25]) would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times.

Conclusions
The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

Any sound, reliable proof against the existance of my six foot tall invisible bunny that gives me advice and tells me what to do?

Do I get the same benefit of the doubt?

Especially the little fiddly-bits... they were always his favourites.

He got an award for them, you know?
Yes, indeed!!!
*bows*
My creations aren't so grandiose .... and the only way i sign them is usually with DNA and tissue/mucous traces. :eek:

Any sound, reliable proof against the existance of my six foot tall invisible bunny that gives me advice and tells me what to do?

Do I get the same benefit of the doubt?
Since Harvey was hangin' with Jimmy Stewart, i'd say the odds are ever more in your favour!

Religion isn't required for understanding anything. Why do I need religion is a better question. I reject it out of more necessary things to do.
AMEN to that!
*bows*

Yes, indeed!!!
*bows*
My creations aren't so grandiose .... and the only way i sign them is usually with DNA and tissue/mucous traces. :eek:

Well, one also has to hope that you aren't working long and hard at your craft (so to speak), up all night (so to speak), just to satisfy a couple of mice...

Well, if a god's a god, then nothing is too difficult or unlikely for him/her to do.

if god can be a him or her maybe it can be an it and that would end the argument. it's not that 5Bam and others 'think' there is a god. though they may think they do. it's that they 'feel' there is ('must' be, 'has' to be, etc). its an aesthetic choice in the end and I'll go with Ocham's razor myself

Since Harvey was hangin' with Jimmy Stewart, i'd say the odds are ever more in your favour!
Yay! Someone gets the Harvey reference!

I have a question. Why do so many people adhere to the idea of God being a human fabrication?
...eh, could be all of the human characteristics that are attributed to "God" to make it seem like we really are in "his" image. As well as, when pressed, the best that devout people can say about the supposed "books" of "God" is that they were "divinely inspired" even if they weren't written by "God" itself. Thus more human intervention/fabrication likelihood.
That, and this far along, there is approximately ZERO proof that the "God" used in such occurrence actually exists in the first place, since plenty of invocations on a *daily* basis haven't resulted in any definable evidence.
Lots of filler for how "God" doesn't want to be found by any logical means ... as well, the "devout" make sure to be the firewall against reason by reiterating that it doesn't take "evidence" to get there, it takes gullibility ... er, "faith".
Too bad it's almost all bad characteristics.

this is why we exist. if this were not the case we wouldn't be standing here, alive, to question it.

its just another way of looking at the same thing (and also a way that doesn't put us, humans, at the centre of the universe, metaphorically speaking)
VERY specifically, the anthropic principle.

The problems this author has in his writing are that you cannot change one variable without a flow on effect, to the other variables involved.

Changing the size or orbit of the moon -could- mean we would be flooded by tides. But a change in size would have meant the moon would be in a different orbit, It would either have fallen back to earth or escaped the earth's gravity to an orbit further way from the earth. Either way there is no way to determine what the follow on effects would have been. IF you actually sit and do the maths on every combination of the mass of the moon, the size of the moon and it's orbit you'll find that there are many combinations of these that would produce similar tidal effects to what we currently have. In fact there may be a feedback loop that ensures that the moon has to be in such an orbit. There are plenty of combinations that would also rip the earth apart. There fail to take into account that the earth is far more affected by it's own gravity then that of the moon. Also the moon is much more likely then the earth to be torn apart by strong tidal forces. And as a final nail in the coffin of his statement, The orbit itself is the MOST likely component of the earth/moon/orbit equation to the altered by these massive tidal forces. that would mean the earth would literally pull the moon into a stable orbit out of one that produced such strong forces, or the moon would escape to a higher orbit with a similar tidal effect.


The singularity that eventuated into the big bang was most likely a super-symmetrical 10 dimensional universe. There is at least a mathematic description for this. In fact it may have only been a part of that 10 dimensional super symmetrical universe. Then something happened 6 of the dimensions appear to have collapsed causing the other 3 to rapidly expand as they continue to do today. This collapse released vast amounts of energy. This energy superheats the vacuum which is created by the expansion. I have a book that describes what happens when you super heat a finite space with near infinity amounts of energy. Matter basically condenses out of the energy. At first it is in Equal portions of matter and anti-matter. What happens as the heat goes up is a series of quantum reactions that result in most of the anti-matter being destroyed. The speed of expansion is set by the energy that caused the explosion. The amount of matter is also set by the amount of energy. So it seems that a faster explosion would have created more matter, thus a greater force of gravity to slow the explosion down. Less energy, less matter, less gravity, slower slow down. Again it is not unlikely, it is probable.


We do not really know enough about the way these force work together to accept this statement or reject it, but there is tentative mathematical evidence that the four forces have a common cause (Grand United Theory and superstring theory). Thus the "balance" is probably more akin to a gyroscope then a hippo on the Niagra Falls, with each force reacting in a dynamic manner to the other three.


As stated above a change in gravity would have a flow through effect to other forces. Besides life on earth is more dependant on the stars that existed in the region before our sun. All it was "waiting" for was a planet with the right conditions. Had the sun been smaller it could be Venus, larger it could be Mars. We have little information about how planets such as the Earth come into being but as new technologies that allow us to study planets orbiting other stars becomes available it will mean we will be able to start looking for them. It may in fact just require the right elements to accrue at an appropriate distance from the star. The requisite distance could be controlled by the temperature and the gravity or the star rather then the star itself.

Most likely stars that form helium would be hotter, or cooler. Hydrogen, forms a star by gravitational means. When it gets to a size which puts the right amount of force on the atoms to start fission the star starts burning. Less strong force would mean that stars would have to build up more hydrogen before sustained combustion started, More Weak force would mean the stars would be smaller.


What other changes would be made by changing any of an electrons variables? Also electrons and protons are both "made" of the same "stuff", as are neutrons. Any attempt to make a universe in which electrons behave differently would also cause the proton to act differently.


Explained above.

The argument comes from the difficultly in producing carbon using fusion. Three Helium atoms have to collide and stick together long enough to fuse. The energy required to do this is a very specific level. There is a scientific word for it and the value is approx. 6.7 (or some such similar number) Now when three helium atoms collide the energy needed is short of this figure. but through an amazing coincidence the stars that produce carbon through fusion do so at a that makes up the shortfall. No people try to point out that changing this constant that carbon requires means these suns would not produce carbon, thus no life, OMG that mus m3an their is a god!!!1!11. The error to this logic is that the stars that create carbon, do not do it coincidentally. They are "burning" the helium. The stars will always make up the short fall in the energy requirement to create carbon because that is what the star is doing, fusing helium to form carbon. It's like being amazed that the a fire burns at just the right temperature to burn wood.
I'd just like to say, this is a most excellent post in the pragmatic sense.
I just hope that 5bams bothers to read it.

You, just like most of creationists, approach the question from totally wrong direction. The same mistake has been made by many of you opponents in this thread too, though.

The thing is, our world is not any final goal or something that was targeted when trying to create life.

See, it really is quite damn unlikely to have the incredible nature we have on this planet, all the species and lifeforms and even the human mind. All those are magnificent things, and ver unlikely to happen. However, when you have more time than you can imagine, billions of years, billions of stars, hundreds and thousands of billions of planets, it is quite damn likely we will end up with something! This time it happened to be like this.

You talk about how there would be no life if our Earth would be just a bit further or closer of the Sun. I daresay you're wrong. There would, or atleast could be life.

You judge the situation by thinking that as our current ecosystem couldn't survive there would be no life at all. Again, the fundamental misunderstanding. It's like taking a cat, putting it under the water, seeing it dying and claiming that there can be no life under the surface. Instead, those lifeforms have managed to survive in enviroment that is impossible to you, because they have been born in there.



One last example: You meet the girl of your life in a vacation, in Brazil, in a basketball game, and that is because she comes to laugh at you because of your funny-looking t-shirt. Incredibly unlikely. God must have had his fingers in it, or how else could you explain it? That all the factors, the game, the country, the timing, the shirt - all matched!


But when you look at the statistics, vaist majority of people meet someone they fall in love to, in some point of their life. Majority of western males see some sort of a sport game during their lifetime. Majority keeps t-shirt in Brazil due the heat. And so on. It just happened to be that girl.

It just happened to be this human race.
And ANOTHER excellent post.
Best summated here, methinks:
See, it really is quite damn unlikely to have the incredible nature we have on this planet, all the species and lifeforms and even the human mind. All those are magnificent things, and ver unlikely to happen. However, when you have more time than you can imagine, billions of years, billions of stars, hundreds and thousands of billions of planets, it is quite damn likely we will end up with something!
*bows*

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?

for me, it's fairly simple:

while one might take the near persistence of historical beliefs in the supernatural as evidence for the actual existence of the divine, I have the exact opposite interpretation:

belief in the supernatural *is* ubiquitous, but it is as diverse in quality and kind as it is omnipresent. Therefore, my analysis is that this persistent trait of the human condition is not indicative of something that exists outside of the human consciousness, but rather is more likely to be evidence of an evolutionarily selective trait aimed at dealing with the conrontation with one's own mortality.

In this light, organized religious beliefs tell us much about a given society, and absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of the divine.

This is a perfectly good reason for rejecting any extant religion, but less effective as an argument against the ultimate existence of the divine.

For that, I have to resort to my belief that the extra-natural is, at this point in human history, not only completely unneccessary, but actually detrimental to humanity's interaction at all points.

I'd be more interested to hear a reasonable argument in favour of faith, let alone any particular religion...

I'd be more interested to hear a reasonable argument in favour of faith, let alone any particular religion...
There's bound to be another to pop up any time soon.
Good post. *bows*

I was thinking more of stories like this http://www.fables.org/autumn04/maui.html (sorry it is quite long). It explains how it is that sticks can be rubbed together to make fire.
Marvelous tale, thanks. This story is myth; the people in it, Maui and his grandmother, Mahuika, the ancestor, are supernatural. The knowledge of fire is the goal that sets the young man on his quest. A truly significant part of the story is his spiritual awakening, from being the bumbling fool to a responsible man, which is symbolized in his transformation to the hawk. He finally realises he might fail in his quest and his people might die because of him. Being enlightened so (being the hawk, with a view from above) gives him the proper eyes to see a solution to his problem.

Marvelous.

You're not quite right on that one.

http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html

...What are the ultimate degrees of freedom? Atoms, after all, are made of electrons and nuclei, nuclei are agglomerations of protons and neutrons, and those in turn are composed of quarks. Many physicists today consider electrons and quarks to be excitations of superstrings, which they hypothesize to be the most fundamental entities. But the vicissitudes of a century of revelations in physics warn us not to be dogmatic. There could be more levels of structure in our universe than are dreamt of in today's physics.

One cannot calculate the ultimate information capacity of a chunk of matter or, equivalently, its true thermodynamic entropy, without knowing the nature of the ultimate constituents of matter or of the deepest level of structure, which I shall refer to as level X. (This ambiguity causes no problems in analyzing practical thermodynamics, such as that of car engines, for example, because the quarks within the atoms can be ignored--they do not change their states under the relatively benign conditions in the engine.) Given the dizzying progress in miniaturization, one can playfully contemplate a day when quarks will serve to store information, one bit apiece perhaps. How much information would then fit into our one-centimeter cube? And how much if we harness superstrings or even deeper, yet undreamt of levels? Surprisingly, developments in gravitation physics in the past three decades have supplied some clear answers to what seem to be elusive questions......
...ZZZzzzzzzz


;)

That's neat, about the holouniverse, though.

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?

But technically this argument is meaningless since you can offer no proof to validate the claim he does exists.. most people dont claim to have evidence he dosn't, but simply state there is no proof he does.

Saying he has always existed (eternal) sounds just as foolish as saying he never existed (lacking proof on both sides).

And actually there are very good explainations in science as to how everythign came about if you took the time to learn it.. but how can someone have always existed ?

...eh, could be all of the human characteristics that are attributed to "God" to make it seem like we really are in "his" image.
Aye; in that the "image" of God was concretized (my new favourite word) into being a physical appearance, rather than a spiritual mirroring.

But technically this argument is meaningless since you can offer no proof to validate the claim he does exists.. most people dont claim to have evidence he dosn't, but simply state there is no proof he does.

Saying he has always existed (eternal) sounds just as foolish as saying he never existed (lacking proof on both sides).

And actually there are very good explainations in science as to how everythign came about if you took the time to learn it.. but how can someone have always existed ?
The claim is that god exists supernaturally, so there can never be any proof forthcoming. The claim that there is no proof is not incorrect; it's not helpful, but it's not incorrect.

The supernatural being can "have always existed" because the realm of the supernatural is apart from nature, the physical world, and not subject to its natural laws.

If it makes you feel better, think of it as meaning that god exists in the imagination. Perhaps then, he would not be so threatening. The end result is the same, in my opinion, since all we can know of god is our "image" of him.

Seems to me lots of people reject religion without giving a proper reason. Can anyone give me a "proper" reason?

Like explain how something can come from nothing for no reason.

And before you say it, God didn't come from nothing. Eternal, remember?

If you're going to want to understand why something can come from nothing, you're going to have to be able to solve linear inequalities and partial differential equations. Learn how to do that, learn Quantum Mechanics, then you'll understand. Fair Enough? Until then, just take it as read that it happens.

You want a proper reason for rejecting God? When we get a Quantum Theory of Gravity, we won't need God. We won't need him to create the universe, to give us free will, to mold humanity, won't need him for anything. The theory will include the uncertainty principle (because it's a quantum theory), allowing something to apper from nothing. Roger Penrose has done a lot of work with gravity in relation to the mind, we can use his psychology to explain the mind (ie, free will, human reasoning, etc). We won't need God to explain the natural world. With the natural world explained, the existance of a supernatural world will be pure unfounded speculation, and not a rational deduction, therefore not to be accepted as truth .

...ZZZzzzzzzz


;)

That's neat, about the holouniverse, though.
Well, to be fair, the part you cited wasn't really the meat of the article.
And, indeed, it goes on a bit.
Get it .. bit?
*nyuk nyuk*