NationStates Jolt Archive

There's no 3rd option, right? If so, what?

Obviously, this is a discussion about GOD but I didnt ask it directly, because:

a: GOD threads get too long and hence hard to follow;
b: I didnt want bunch of people quoting bible and arguing about it;
c: There are bunch of threads about it and I wanted to concentrate on this particular aspect.

I've discussed this with some people I know over time and I wonder what other people think.
Why am I discussing on macro/universe level? Well...on micro/sub atomic level things seem coincidental, as suggested by Quantum Theory, which is very popular. Or maybe not? maybe sub atomic particles overall behave suggested by chaos theory, meaning overall they are orderly?
Anyway, I know things on normal level (Earth, life as we know it) can be coicidental. It's just a statistical possibility given the size of the universe. Even if the possibility of intelligent life in a planet is like 1/1 trillion (is this a conservative guess?), there could be billions of intelligent life in universe.
So, my question. Doesnt universe seem too orderly for it to be a result of some explosion and uncontrolled growth? I mean are all those laws, theories, constants a result of chance? We've never been to other galaxies but I think via telescopes and stuff we are pretty sure gravity laws hold in other galaxies just as in ours. Shouldnt things be more messy if universe isnt designed? Like time going forward in one place and backward in other or like gravity attracting bodies in one place and repulsing in other? What do you guys think?

Waddaya mean no third option? Something might have created the framework that allowed the universe to occur and let it grow and form without forethought or interruption.

I personally find it unlikely that reality is a result of specific tinkering by some conscious entity, but I do consider it a possibility that the process may have origins in some timeframe or spatial existence outside our own.

The Universe is clearly the work of an insane and violently disturbed performance artist that likes mud and tacos.

Which is probably why I like it here so much. :)

Waddaya mean no third option? Something might have created the framework that allowed the universe to occur and let it grow and form without forethought or interruption.

I personally find it unlikely that reality is a result of specific tinkering by some conscious entity, but I do consider it a possibility that the process may have origins in some timeframe or spatial existence outside our own.

If "Something might have created the framework", it means it is designed even though that something did "let it grow and form without forethought or interruption".

I don't know the answer to the question, but I do know the way it is posed makes little sense.

If "Something might have created the framework", it means it is designed even though that something did "let it grow and form without forethought or interruption".
No it doesn't. Design implies deliberation, planning and forethought. What I'm suggesting is more of a sort of "Let's throw it in and see what happens" experimentation, which is certainly not considered to be design.

No it doesn't. Design implies deliberation, planning and forethought. What I'm suggesting is more of a sort of "Let's throw it in and see what happens" experimentation, which is certainly not considered to be design.

"Let's throw it in and see what happens"? Universe isnt some perfume research.

"Let's throw it in and see what happens"? Universe isnt some perfume research.

How do you know? We could be dabbed behind some giant purple girl's ear as we speak! :eek:

So, you really liked Men in Black series, huh? :eek: x 100

If the universe is billions of years old like scientists estimate, I'd say that it's a possibility that trillions of little "accidents" (rather just "happenings" -- "accidents" implies a directed force) occurred to form the universe as it is today. While things appear orderly, enough time has ellapsed to allow for any non-orderly systems implode upon themselves, leaving orderly designs to remain.

As for the part about shouldn't things be "messier." Well, the truth is, there are many "messy" aspects of the universe, nonetheleast with the human race. Why do humans have tailbones if they serve no purpose? Why does the eye need light in order to allow for a human to see? Why do so many defects occur in the genetic code? If the universe was designed, these aspects make the designer look very sloppy.

"Let's throw it in and see what happens"? Universe isnt some perfume research.
Could be. We don't know. There's about as much reason to assume it is as we have any other possible purpose for it, ne? ^__^

So, you really liked Men in Black series, huh? :eek: x 100

Not really. Men in dark suits and sunglasses bring back harsh memories of those first few years on the run after I escaped from that laboratory....

...um.... I mean....

I loved em! :D

If the universe is billions of years old like scientists estimate, I'd say that it's a possibility that trillions of little "accidents" (rather just "happenings" -- "accidents" implies a directed force) occurred to form the universe as it is today. While things appear orderly, enough time has ellapsed to allow for any non-orderly systems implode upon themselves, leaving orderly designs to remain.

As for the part about shouldn't things be "messier." Well, the truth is, there are many "messy" aspects of the universe, nonetheleast with the human race. Why do humans have tailbones if they serve no purpose? Why does the eye need light in order to allow for a human to see? Why do so many defects occur in the genetic code? If the universe was designed, these aspects make the designer look very sloppy.

I think it's close minded to think good designer = everything is perfect. Sometimes a blind person (genetic defect) might remind you the value of the fact that you can see. Or perhaps that blind person is happier than if he would be if he could see?
And how could non-orderly systems implode?

There's no 3rd option, right? If so, what?

Obviously, this is a discussion about GOD but I didnt ask it directly, because:

a: GOD threads get too long and hence hard to follow;
b: I didnt want bunch of people quoting bible and arguing about it;
c: There are bunch of threads about it and I wanted to concentrate on this particular aspect.

I've discussed this with some people I know over time and I wonder what other people think.
Why am I discussing on macro/universe level? Well...on micro/sub atomic level things seem coincidental, as suggested by Quantum Theory, which is very popular. Or maybe not? maybe sub atomic particles overall behave suggested by chaos theory, meaning overall they are orderly?
Anyway, I know things on normal level (Earth, life as we know it) can be coicidental. It's just a statistical possibility given the size of the universe. Even if the possibility of intelligent life in a planet is like 1/1 trillion (is this a conservative guess?), there could be billions of intelligent life in universe.
So, my question. Doesnt universe seem too orderly for it to be a result of some explosion and uncontrolled growth? I mean are all those laws, theories, constants a result of chance? We've never been to other galaxies but I think via telescopes and stuff we are pretty sure gravity laws hold in other galaxies just as in ours. Shouldnt things be more messy if universe isnt designed? Like time going forward in one place and backward in other or like gravity attracting bodies in one place and repulsing in other? What do you guys think?
What I think is that THIS universe, the laws of physics hold regardless of your location. In other universes ( of which there are apparently an infinity ) the same may not hold true, or they may simply have different laws of physics which do hold true in that particular universe.

"Order" is a subjective concept.

What I think is that THIS universe, the laws of physics hold regardless of your location. In other universes ( of which there are apparently an infinity ) the same may not hold true, or they may simply have different laws of physics which do hold true in that particular universe.

"Order" is a subjective concept.

"In other universes ( of which there are apparently an infinity )"? How is that "apparently"? That's much more speculation than debating the existance of GOD, I think.

If the universe is billions of years old like scientists estimate, I'd say that it's a possibility that trillions of little "accidents" (rather just "happenings" -- "accidents" implies a directed force) occurred to form the universe as it is today. While things appear orderly, enough time has ellapsed to allow for any non-orderly systems implode upon themselves, leaving orderly designs to remain.

As for the part about shouldn't things be "messier." Well, the truth is, there are many "messy" aspects of the universe, nonetheleast with the human race. Why do humans have tailbones if they serve no purpose? Why does the eye need light in order to allow for a human to see? Why do so many defects occur in the genetic code? If the universe was designed, these aspects make the designer look very sloppy.

For one thing, "defects" in our genetic coding make us who we are, and therefore, if you were to consider the determining factors inherent in our DNA as "defects" rather than mutations, the whole of the human race would be "defective." I'm not trying to be mean, but it'd be nicer to not call ourselves bad products, you know? Anyway, I personally subscribe to chaos theory, because in my experience, I have found there to be underlying order in things seemingly chaotic. Games, for example, have a seemingly chaotic lump of pixels that could be anything, but there is an underlying structure and order (coding) that makes the lump of pixels what it is. Bad analogy, but you get what I'm saying. View something on a macro-universal scale, e.g. a star or a nebula, and you would see some rudimentary forms of order and structure. I personally think, to answer the OP, that the universe had to have been a rather lucky series of coincidental happenings, because if you say, "God created it and that's that" I tend to say, where did God come from, why did he create the universe? To live in something? Then the response would be "God has always existed" to which I just say, circular reasoning really won't get you out of this predicament. God created the universe, and on a micro scale, the universe created God, which then created the universe.....You get it. I think that design is not truly the answer.

For one thing, "defects" in our genetic coding make us who we are, and therefor, if you were to consider the determining factors inherent in our DNA as "defects" rather than mutations, the whole of the human race would be "defective." I'm not trying to be mean, but it'd be nicer to not call ourselves bad products, you know? Anyway, I personally subscribe to chaos theory, because in my experience, I have found there to be underlying order in things seemingly chaotic. Games, for example, have a seemingly chaotic lump of pixels that could be anything, but there is an underlying structure and order (coding) that makes the lump of pixels what it is. Bad analogy, but you get what I'm saying. View something on a macro-universal scale, e.g. a star or a nebula, and you would see some rudimentary forms of order and structure. I personally think, to answer the OP, that the universe had to have been a rather lucky series of coincidental happenings, because if you say, "God created it and that's that" I tend to say, where did God come from, why did he create the universe? To live in something? Then the response would be "God has always existed" to which I just say, circular reasoning really won't get you out of this predicament. God created the universe, and on a micro scale, the universe created God, which then created the universe.....You get it. I think that design is not truly the answer.
I meant "defects" as in genetic diseases/disorders and so forth.

Your logic on God and the universe is interesting. Trying to think of matters of faith in a cause/effect way, however, never really works.

What's this? A My Nordland thread not about race or the evil Muslims?

:eek: *Faints in shock*


In answer to what I think you're asking, I believe that God and Evolution go hand in hand; the Universe is therefore both designed, guided and random.

"In other universes ( of which there are apparently an infinity )"? How is that "apparently"? That's much more speculation than debating the existance of GOD, I think.

Speculation is indeed plentiful on this subject, because if you wonder about whether or not your having a cigarette the other day made your dog sick, and if you hadn't, your dog would be fine, you'd have to admit that there are an infinite number of possible alternate universes, all playing out a series of events that never happened in our here and now because a different decision was made, and a new timeline created.

I meant "defects" as in genetic diseases/disorders and so forth.

Your logic on God and the universe is interesting. Trying to think of matters of faith in a cause/effect way, however, never really works.

I could surmise that, but they are mutations, as a result of inherently faulty coding, or some outside influence. [edit] These mutations cause us to be who we are, and I think cannot be called defects. [edit] Faith though, I tend not to think of in a "I belive" manner, because I like information, and cause/effect seems to work in interesting ways. Plus, its funny to see people's reactions when I give them a new argument.

"In other universes ( of which there are apparently an infinity )"? How is that "apparently"? That's much more speculation than debating the existance of GOD, I think.
The existence of other universes has been inferred mathematically, primarily via "M-theory." The existence of God is purely a matter of faith. Unless you know of some way in which God's existence can be inferred mathematically, then the preponderance of the evidence comes down on the side of the "infinity of universes."

For one thing, "defects" in our genetic coding make us who we are, and therefor, if you were to consider the determining factors inherent in our DNA as "defects" rather than mutations, the whole of the human race would be "defective." I'm not trying to be mean, but it'd be nicer to not call ourselves bad products, you know? Anyway, I personally subscribe to chaos theory, because in my experience, I have found there to be underlying order in things seemingly chaotic. Games, for example, have a seemingly chaotic lump of pixels that could be anything, but there is an underlying structure and order (coding) that makes the lump of pixels what it is. Bad analogy, but you get what I'm saying. View something on a macro-universal scale, e.g. a star or a nebula, and you would see some rudimentary forms of order and structure. I personally think, to answer the OP, that the universe had to have been a rather lucky series of coincidental happenings, because if you say, "God created it and that's that" I tend to say, where did God come from, why did he create the universe? To live in something? Then the response would be "God has always existed" to which I just say, circular reasoning really won't get you out of this predicament. God created the universe, and on a micro scale, the universe created God, which then created the universe.....You get it. I think that design is not truly the answer.

If we accept the existance of GOD, Do we have to say "GOD has always existed"? I think yes. Is that circular reasoning. I think not. You might ask why do I assume if it isnt the universe which has always existed? Most (maybe all) theories suggest universe had a beginnig, including the most popular one, big bang theory. So GOD is something different than the universe, a designer consciousness.

The existence of other universes has been inferred mathematically, primarily via "M-theory." The existence of God is purely a matter of faith. Unless you know of some way in which God's existence can be inferred mathematically, then the preponderance of the evidence comes down on the side of the "infinity of universes."

If God's existence could be inferred mathematically, I'd say you deserve pi.

If we accept the existance of GOD, Do we have to say "GOD has always existed"? I think yes. Is that circular reasoning. I think not. You might ask why do I assume if it isnt the universe which has always existed? Most (maybe all) theories suggest universe had a beginnig, including the most popular one, big bang theory. So GOD is something different than the universe, a designer consciousness.

Quite, but I was just saying, God is seen to be always and forever, an everlasting entity, and the universe, I admit, had to have began somewhere, somehow. However, I refuse to believe that an entity created the universe. It's possible to assume, however, that the creation of the universe was a direct result of the destruction of another one. And time and life just cycle according to a universe dying and a new one beginning using the dead universe's materials.

The existence of other universes has been inferred mathematically, primarily via "M-theory." The existence of God is purely a matter of faith. Unless you know of some way in which God's existence can be inferred mathematically, then the preponderance of the evidence comes down on the side of the "infinity of universes."

Wouldn't an infinity of universes suggest that at least one of them could have developed a being with the ability to observe and guide another universe?

:D

If God's existence could be inferred mathematically, I'd say you deserve pi.

Infinite universes almost guarantee the existence of God. :)

Do You Think If Universe is Designed or a Result of Countless Coincidences?
If there is an omniscient omnipotent God, what's the difference?

If there is an omniscient omnipotent God, what's the difference?

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent -- it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.

Wouldn't an infinity of universes suggest that at least one of them could have developed a being with the ability to observe and guide another universe?

:D
Superb.

The existence of other universes has been inferred mathematically, primarily via "M-theory." The existence of God is purely a matter of faith. Unless you know of some way in which God's existence can be inferred mathematically, then the preponderance of the evidence comes down on the side of the "infinity of universes."

This is the first time I've heard about M-theory and I might look up at that later. I'll assume you are right about the conclusions of the M-theory - infinite universes. But isnt suggesting different laws of physics in other universes pure speculation? If we are going to 100% speculate, can we also say that perhaps those infinite universes overall make some macro order? How can we speculate that those billions of other universes are a mess and ours is the statistical result, the orderly one among billions (or one of many)?

This is the first time I've heard about M-theory and I might look up at that later. I'll assume you are right about the conclusions of the M-theory - infinite universes. But isnt suggesting different laws of physics in other universes pure speculation? If we are going to 100% speculate, can we also say that perhaps those infinite universes overall make some macro order? How can we speculate that those billions of other universes are a mess and ours is the statistical result, the orderly one among billions (or one of many)?

We can never truly say that ours is the one universe with any semblance of order, because we don't know, and I don't think its proper to say that there aren't an infinite number of other orderly universes. On the other hand, I don't want my head to explode so I'll just say that speculation is the only thing we can rely on, otherwise if we could comprehend the sheer size of the universe, our heads would explode.

[edit] M-theory was formerly known as string theory. [edit]

Doesnt universe seem too orderly for it to be a result of some explosion and uncontrolled growth? I mean are all those laws, theories, constants a result of chance? We've never been to other galaxies but I think via telescopes and stuff we are pretty sure gravity laws hold in other galaxies just as in ours. Shouldnt things be more messy if universe isnt designed? Like time going forward in one place and backward in other or like gravity attracting bodies in one place and repulsing in other? What do you guys think?

I don't think this is a meaningful question. It is my position that to ask “what would the Universe be like if gravity was stronger/weaker?” or “what would the Universe be like if hydrogen acted in a different way?” is no more meaningful than to ask “if triangles had four sides then would Pythagoras’s theorem still apply?” The triangle example is meaningless because a triangle, by definition, has three sides, not four. The previous two examples are equally meaningless because gravity and hydrogen have certain properties by definition. Your question is only meaningful if it can be shown that the Universe could act in any other way and, as far as we know, it couldn’t.

I did an essay on Aquinas's quinque viae a couple of weeks ago so I'm making a quick copy and paste attack before I go to bed, night all. :)

I don't think this is a meaningful question. It is my position that to ask “what would the Universe be like if gravity was stronger/weaker?” or “what would the Universe be like if hydrogen acted in a different way?” is no more meaningful than to ask “if triangles had four sides then would Pythagoras’s theorem still apply?” The triangle example is meaningless because a triangle, by definition, has three sides, not four. The previous two examples are equally meaningless because gravity and hydrogen have certain properties by definition. Your question is only meaningful if it can be shown that the Universe could act in any other way and, as far as we know, it couldn’t.

I did an essay on Aquinas's quinque viae a couple of weeks ago so I'm making a quick copy and paste attack before I go to bed, night all. :)
But triangles have three sides. Three! Think about it....

Why does the eye need light in order to allow for a human to see?
Is this a serious question? Gee, I don't know, maybe because light is what the eyes are supposed to detect? When you see an object, what your eyes are detecting are the photons (particles of light) which have bounced off of the object and into your eyes. Without light, there is nothing for your eyes to detect. You can't see photons that aren't there.

Quite, but I was just saying, God is seen to be always and forever, an everlasting entity, and the universe, I admit, had to have began somewhere, somehow. However, I refuse to believe that an entity created the universe. It's possible to assume, however, that the creation of the universe was a direct result of the destruction of another one. And time and life just cycle according to a universe dying and a new one beginning using the dead universe's materials.

If universes are result of previous dieing universes and if we go back infinitaly backwards in time, that means "a" universe should have begun out of nothing. And that's the paradox in your assumption, I think.

I don't think it necessarily matters. I see no reason why a God or Gods could not use randomness to develop a universe and then impart a soul to the creatures it felt achieved a certain level of sentience; it's possible that God might even do this for that species to evolve to an advanced enough level to rule over that universe as demigods, freeing the God(s) to create universes anew. It's also plausible that the things we imagine to be God(s) is in fact an extremely advanced civilization from another universe who has either developed the ability to create new universes or travel between them and shape universes according to their will with ultra-advanced technology.

Maybe humans will one day develop that ability and become known as Gods to some other universe...

If universes are result of previous dieing universes and if we go back infinitaly backwards in time, that means "a" universe should have begun out of nothing. And that's the paradox in your assumption, I think.

It's circular reasoning. I don't believe that really, I was just relating it to God and the circular reasoning there.

We can never truly say that ours is the one universe with any semblance of order, because we don't know, and I don't think its proper to say that there aren't an infinite number of other orderly universes. On the other hand, I don't want my head to explode so I'll just say that speculation is the only thing we can rely on, otherwise if we could comprehend the sheer size of the universe, our heads would explode.
Yeah... chance.

Chance is leaving things to circumstances. It's a deterministic statement.

We don't know that there are more universes, so that doesn't matter. We know this one, and things we know have to make sense in this one.

I don't think it necessarily matters. I see no reason why a God or Gods could not use randomness to develop a universe and then impart a soul to the creatures it felt achieved a certain level of sentience; it's possible that God might even do this for that species to evolve to an advanced enough level to rule over that universe as demigods, freeing the God(s) to create universes anew. It's also plausible that the things we imagine to be God(s) is in fact an extremely advanced civilization from another universe who has either developed the ability to create new universes or travel between them and shape universes according to their will with ultra-advanced technology.

Maybe humans will one day develop that ability and become known as Gods to some other universe...


COOL! I can't wait man!!!!!!!!! :eek:

But triangles have three sides. Three! Think about it....

Wrong! Triangles have two sides!

An inside and an outside. :D

Wrong! Triangles have two sides!

An inside and an outside. :D
D'oh!!!

I don't think it necessarily matters. I see no reason why a God or Gods could not use randomness to develop a universe and then impart a soul to the creatures it felt achieved a certain level of sentience; it's possible that God might even do this for that species to evolve to an advanced enough level to rule over that universe as demigods, freeing the God(s) to create universes anew. It's also plausible that the things we imagine to be God(s) is in fact an extremely advanced civilization from another universe who has either developed the ability to create new universes or travel between them and shape universes according to their will with ultra-advanced technology.

Maybe humans will one day develop that ability and become known as Gods to some other universe...

I'm gonna make my own universe! With blackjack and hookers!

Wrong! Triangles have two sides!

An inside and an outside. :D

Vetalie could be right and / or you could.
Ulmtimatly it depends on your definition of "side".

Is this a serious question? Gee, I don't know, maybe because light is what the eyes are supposed to detect? When you see an object, what your eyes are detecting are the photons (particles of light) which have bounced off of the object and into your eyes. Without light, there is nothing for your eyes to detect. You can't see photons that aren't there.
...

The question is in relation to design...

I was just pointing out that the eye is imperfect in that it requires light in order to see, regardless of the buttfuck photon reason for it. My point was that if humans were designed by an intelligent force, the eye wouldn't be as functionally impaired...

Not really. Men in dark suits and sunglasses bring back harsh memories of those first few years on the run after I escaped from that laboratory....

...um.... I mean....

I loved em! :D

Here little LG, I've got some mud for you. *hides stun gun*

I'm gonna make my own universe! With blackjack and hookers!

Actually, forget the universe. And the blackjack.

We can never truly say that ours is the one universe with any semblance of order, because we don't know, and I don't think its proper to say that there aren't an infinite number of other orderly universes. On the other hand, I don't want my head to explode so I'll just say that speculation is the only thing we can rely on, otherwise if we could comprehend the sheer size of the universe, our heads would explode.

[edit] M-theory was formerly known as string theory. [edit]

We can never truly say anything! We are discussing what is more likely here. And what is more likely is that our universe has an order, I think.

Here little LG, I've got some mud for you. *hides stun gun*

Just throw it. :)

Wouldn't an infinity of universes suggest that at least one of them could have developed a being with the ability to observe and guide another universe?

:D
With infinity, anything is possible. :)

This is the first time I've heard about M-theory and I might look up at that later. I'll assume you are right about the conclusions of the M-theory - infinite universes. But isnt suggesting different laws of physics in other universes pure speculation? If we are going to 100% speculate, can we also say that perhaps those infinite universes overall make some macro order? How can we speculate that those billions of other universes are a mess and ours is the statistical result, the orderly one among billions (or one of many)?
You just stepped beyond the limit of my understanding of M-Theory. Sorry, but you're now on your own. :D

I don't think this is a meaningful question. It is my position that to ask “what would the Universe be like if gravity was stronger/weaker?” or “what would the Universe be like if hydrogen acted in a different way?” is no more meaningful than to ask “if triangles had four sides then would Pythagoras’s theorem still apply?” The triangle example is meaningless because a triangle, by definition, has three sides, not four. The previous two examples are equally meaningless because gravity and hydrogen have certain properties by definition. Your question is only meaningful if it can be shown that the Universe could act in any other way and, as far as we know, it couldn’t.

I did an essay on Aquinas's quinque viae a couple of weeks ago so I'm making a quick copy and paste attack before I go to bed, night all. :)

Gravity isnt semantics. It's a phenomenon, the fact that masses attract other bodies in universe. If the universe isnt orderly, shouldnt things be more messy? Like masses attracting bodies in one galaxy and repulsing it in another and half of the time attracting it while half of the time repulsing it in another galaxy, etc....We didnt define gravity, it already existed, we just named it. I know billions of time is a long time to evolve, but all those constants, laws, that hold in all areas f the universe as far as we know, a result of coincidinces?

We can never truly say that ours is the one universe with any semblance of order, because we don't know, and I don't think its proper to say that there aren't an infinite number of other orderly universes. On the other hand, I don't want my head to explode so I'll just say that speculation is the only thing we can rely on, otherwise if we could comprehend the sheer size of the universe, our heads would explode.

[edit] M-theory was formerly known as string theory. [edit]
String Theory gave rise to M-theory. As I understand it, they are both based on mathematical constructs, which is the reverse of the prior order in science in which physics led the way. :confused:

If there are an infinity of universes, then there is also an infinity of universes with some sort of order, as well as an infinity of universes with pure chaos. The total infinity of universes would simply be a greater infinity than either of the other two.

Now my head hurts! Thanks a lot! :p

But triangles have three sides. Three! Think about it....
[ Thinks. Head explodes! ] :p

I'm gonna make my own universe! With blackjack and hookers!
Oooooo! Can I move there??? :D

Gravity isnt semantics. It's a phenomenon, the fact that masses attract other bodies in universe. If the universe isnt orderly, shouldnt things be more messy? Like masses attracting bodies in one galaxy and repulsing it in another and half of the time attracting it while half of the time repulsing it in another galaxy, etc....We didnt define gravity, it already existed, we just named it. I know billions of time is a long time to evolve, but all those constants, laws, that hold in all areas f the universe as far as we know, a result of coincidinces?

When we know definitively what causes gravity then we might be one step closer to that answer. So far, all we have are theories based on educated guesses. However, the fact that gravitation is a universal phenomenon and not a galactic phenomenon can be traced back to the singular superdense mass that the universe began as. All galaxies have the same origin and therefore the same original physics. What defined those original physics? I don't know. Personally, I suspect that Planck's Constant is the basic value of the universe that all others derive from. Mathematically, it seems to be the common factor of all matter and energy.

What I wonder is: What set Planck's Constant, and can it be altered?

When we know definitively what causes gravity then we might be one step closer to that answer. So far, all we have are theories based on educated guesses. However, the fact that gravitation is a universal phenomenon and not a galactic phenomenon can be traced back to the singular superdense mass that the universe began as. All galaxies have the same origin and therefore the same original physics. What defined those original physics? I don't know. Personally, I suspect that Planck's Constant is the basic value of the universe that all others derive from. Mathematically, it seems to be the common factor of all matter and energy.

What I wonder is: What set Planck's Constant, and can it be altered?
Perhaps Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? :)

Perhaps Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? :)

That has a strong grounding in Planck's Constant also. *nod*

That has a strong grounding in Planck's Constant also. *nod*
LMAO! Uhhh .... no comment! :D

LMAO! Uhhh .... no comment! :D

*blink* What did I miss? :confused:

I'm gonna make my own universe! With blackjack and hookers!

Bender :D

Bender :D
Uh ... would that be alcoholic or gender? :D

Uh ... would that be alcoholic or gender? :D

Futurama character :p

Do You Think If Universe is Designed or a Result of Countless Coincidences?

Neither. The consistent nature of the action and reaction of energy and matter in no way constitutes "Countless Coincidences." Now if the trillionth digit of Pi turns out to be a picture of Jesus - then you've got a coincidence.

Futurama character :p
Heh! :D

Heh! :D

Never seen it?

We're all floating about in a giant petri-dish...Soon the cover slide will squish us all like the tiny bugs that we are.

Never seen it?
Nope. Sorry. Heard of it though. :)

Nope. Sorry. Heard of it though. :)

You should seek it out, it's brilliant.

Sadly cancelled by Fox :(

You should seek it out, it's brilliant.
Sadly cancelled by Fox :(

But it's coming back! Confirmed 13 new episodes and 4 straight-to-DVD movies!

But it's coming back! Confirmed 13 new episodes and 4 straight-to-DVD movies!

I knew about the movies, but new episodes?!?

:D :D :D

I knew about the movies, but new episodes?!?:D :D :D

Comedy Central confirmed purchasing 13 episodes on June 22.:cool:

"Coincidence" or "accident" or "chance" is often used by anti-Evolutionists to dismiss all science as exceptionally improbable, and evolution in particular. It's a strawman argument, however, because evolution doesn't work by "design" nor is it "random," but rather based on positive and negative feedback loops with some unknowns (aka random) to supply the so-called 'design.'

Anyway, so I don't think it's "coincidence" but I don't believe there has to have been "Design" and a "Designer" either. The options seem unnecessarily simplistic.

BTW NN, congrats on a thread not involving race, immigration, ethnicity or superiority/inferiority. I mean it. It's a refreshing change. :)

You should seek it out, it's brilliant.

Sadly cancelled by Fox :(
What's it about?

"Coincidence" or "accident" or "chance" is often used by anti-Evolutionists to dismiss all science as exceptionally improbable, and evolution in particular. It's a strawman argument, however, because evolution doesn't work by "design" nor is it "random," but rather based on positive and negative feedback loops with some unknowns (aka random) to supply the so-called 'design.'

Anyway, so I don't think it's "coincidence" but I don't believe there has to have been "Design" and a "Designer" either. The options seem unnecessarily simplistic.

BTW NN, congrats on a thread not involving race, immigration, ethnicity or superiority/inferiority. I mean it. It's a refreshing change. :)
LOL! Welcome to NS General, the home of thread recycling. :D

What's it about?
Basically "Simpsons" in the future. That's what they call it here anyways...

Basically "Simpsons" in the future. That's what they call it here anyways...
I never was able to "get into" the Simpsons, so this one might not be for me either. Sigh. :(

I never was able to "get into" the Simpsons, so this one might not be for me either. Sigh. :(

Oh, it's much better than the Simpsons.

Oh, it's much better than the Simpsons.
Kewl. Then I might try to catch it when it begins running again. :)

a: GOD threads get too long and hence hard to follow;
b: I didnt want bunch of people quoting bible and arguing about it;
c: There are bunch of threads about it and I wanted to concentrate on this particular aspect.

Just stop it. God does not exist. We are all taught this in public school. PARENTS CAN TRY TO TEACH IT, but the government has a duty to teach the Truth in schools, whether or not parents want it taught. This was re-affirmed by the much respected 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is usually always on the forefront of societal issues.:mad:

Evolution is true fact, and just get on with it. Instead of worrying about your God, why don't you just go have sex, it's more fun than church anyway. Besides, I hated having my parents tell me what to do all the time. One of the things I loved about school is that my teachers often took my side in disputes with my parents, and my guidence conselor even helped me get contraception when my parents disallowed it. :headbang:

Just stop it. God does not exist. We are all taught this in public school. PARENTS CAN TRY TO TEACH IT, but the government has a duty to teach the Truth in schools, whether or not parents want it taught. This was re-affirmed by the much respected 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is usually always on the forefront of societal issues.:mad:

Evolution is true fact, and just get on with it. Instead of worrying about your God, why don't you just go have sex, it's more fun than church anyway. Besides, I hated having my parents tell me what to do all the time. One of the things I loved about school is that my teachers often took my side in disputes with my parents, and my guidence conselor even helped me get contraception when my parents disallowed it. :headbang:
Ah! Another rebellious youth turns to the left. Tsk! ;)

Just stop it. God does not exist. We are all taught this in public school. PARENTS CAN TRY TO TEACH IT, but the government has a duty to teach the Truth in schools, whether or not parents want it taught. This was re-affirmed by the much respected 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is usually always on the forefront of societal issues.:mad:

Evolution is true fact, and just get on with it. Instead of worrying about your God, why don't you just go have sex, it's more fun than church anyway. Besides, I hated having my parents tell me what to do all the time. One of the things I loved about school is that my teachers often took my side in disputes with my parents, and my guidence conselor even helped me get contraception when my parents disallowed it. :headbang:
Now I don't like your satire so much anymore...

The public schools teach evolution because it's the only theory of the origins of life available that has credibility among the scientific community and can be thoroughly studied. Never is it taught in a science class whose curriculum includes evolution that God does not exist. This type of teaching would never stand; outraged (and rightfully so) parents would start a court battle in a second that would instantly become a media event and fodder for Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, among others.

Now I don't like your satire so much anymore...

The public schools teach evolution because it's the only theory of the origins of life available that has credibility among the scientific community and can be thoroughly studied. Never is it taught in a science class whose curriculum includes evolution that God does not exist. This type of teaching would never stand; outraged (and rightfully so) parents would start a court battle in a second that would instantly become a media event and fodder for Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, among others.
Perzactly! Schools should no more teach atheism in class than they should be teaching any particular religion. Religion and science are distinctly different subjects and should be approached that way.

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it read "Do you think the universe is designed or a result of countless consiousnesses?" and was thinking that someone had come up with some sort of Jungian psychological explanation of the universe. Personally, I kind of like that idea. It seems that there is far too much diversity in the universe to attribute it to a single paradigm.

Perzactly! Schools should no more teach atheism in class than they should be teaching any particular religion. Religion and science are distinctly different subjects and should be approached that way.

My teachers often say that most people are stupid and that they are teaching us true facts. The true fact is that God does not exist. The only "god(s)" we have are our common ancestor with Chimpanzee and Bonobo.

We need this taught in schools as FACT, not theory like the Christians want. That's why WE NEED JON TESTER IN THE SENATE!

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought it read "Do you think the universe is designed or a result of countless consiousnesses?" and was thinking that someone had come up with some sort of Jungian psychological explanation of the universe. Personally, I kind of like that idea. It seems that there is far too much diversity in the universe to attribute it to a single paradigm.

PasturePastry, I will embrace this new theory of yours, but first, does it reveal the truth that God is just a fairy tale? Or is it pro-God. If it is pro-God, it cannot be taught due to the Wall of Seperation MANDATED by the 1st amendment, if it disproves God, then it could be taught in science classes as true fact.

Let me know, it was somewhat confusing, I don't understand the details of science, I'm mostly concerned, as the Union of Concerned Scientisits are, is whether it promotes progressive values or not.

PasturePastry, I will embrace this new theory of yours, but first, does it reveal the truth that God is just a fairy tale? Or is it pro-God. If it is pro-God, it cannot be taught due to the Wall of Seperation MANDATED by the 1st amendment, if it disproves God, then it could be taught in science classes as true fact.

Let me know, it was somewhat confusing, I don't understand the details of science, I'm mostly concerned, as the Union of Concerned Scientisits are, is whether it promotes progressive values or not.

Well, like most theories, they are more concerned with promoting themselves rather than bashing other ones. I don't know if it would disprove God as much as redefine God in such a way that current deist religions would not approve. The way I see it, the current thinking on God is that it is a separate entity that imposes Its will on everything and is totally unaffected by the universe. Looking at God this way would make It an entity that is the result of creation, rather than the creating force. I guess a good way to describe it would be more like chaos theory applied to thought rather than the physical reality. If there is a God, then everybody is responsible for the actions and behavior of God and much in the same way that a butterfly flapping its wings can set off a tornado, the change in the thought of a single consious entity can have far-reaching consequences.

PasturePastry, I will embrace this new theory of yours, but first, does it reveal the truth that God is just a fairy tale? Or is it pro-God. If it is pro-God, it cannot be taught due to the Wall of Seperation MANDATED by the 1st amendment, if it disproves God, then it could be taught in science classes as true fact.

Let me know, it was somewhat confusing, I don't understand the details of science, I'm mostly concerned, as the Union of Concerned Scientisits are, is whether it promotes progressive values or not.
Sigh...evolution is only taught because it is an actual, widespreadingly credible scientific theory, not because it's "progressive" (it's not) nor because it disproves God (it doesn't).

I'm starting to believe that you're Ann Coulter, C+T...

It's circular reasoning. I don't believe that really, I was just relating it to God and the circular reasoning there.

Do you think if we accept the existance of GOD, it must be a circular reasoning? Why? If we say GOD has always been, what's circular about that?

I read an interesting theory.

What if gravity is not a property of mass, but mass is a property of gravity? What if matter came about through bends or tears within the fabric of space? The theory is that holes within spacetime create a void in spacetime, and that void is matter.

What do you think?

Do you think if we accept the existance of GOD, it must be a circular reasoning? Why? If we say GOD has always been, what's circular about that?

Why cant we say "matter has always been"? What makes God so special?

...

The question is in relation to design...

I was just pointing out that the eye is imperfect in that it requires light in order to see, regardless of the buttfuck photon reason for it. My point was that if humans were designed by an intelligent force, the eye wouldn't be as functionally impaired...

I think this proves that your definition of imperfect is imperfect itself. If there were no suffering and we were happy 100% of the time, we'd be like robots, shallow and without any depth. And how can you appreciate being happy if you are happy all the time? Being happy would be like breathing. Do you say "thank god, I just breathed again oh and again oh I'm so pleased about this one too"....?
"Imperfection" / Suffering...etc doesnt invalidate the existance of GOD, I think.

Do You Think If Universe is Designed or a Result of Countless Coincidences?

No.


There's no 3rd option, right? If so, what?

Are you fucking kidding me?!

People, learn some fucking physics before you start talking about the origins of the universe. Please. I will bake you cookies.

Why cant we say "matter has always been"? What makes God so special?
Uh ... because matter hasn't aways been. :p

Clearly the Universe is a dream in the mind of a sleeping duck. However, not being a nuerophysicist or whatever the hell the correct term is, I have no clue if dreams can be considered designed or the result of countless coincidences.

Uh ... because matter hasn't aways been. :p

So we know, for a fact, that God has always been
And we know, for a fact, that matter hasnt?

String Theory gave rise to M-theory. As I understand it, they are both based on mathematical constructs, which is the reverse of the prior order in science in which physics led the way. :confused:

If there are an infinity of universes, then there is also an infinity of universes with some sort of order, as well as an infinity of universes with pure chaos. The total infinity of universes would simply be a greater infinity than either of the other two.

Now my head hurts! Thanks a lot! :p

Mathematically, A total infinity cant be greater than some other infinity. :p

So we know, for a fact, that God has always been
And we know, for a fact, that matter hasnt?
No.

We know for a fact that matter hasn't always been.

Some of us believe that God has always been.

Mathematically, A total infinity cant be greater than some other infinity. :p
You are incorrect. The infinity of numbers, for example, is greater than the infinity of odd numbers. :p

When we know definitively what causes gravity then we might be one step closer to that answer. So far, all we have are theories based on educated guesses. However, the fact that gravitation is a universal phenomenon and not a galactic phenomenon can be traced back to the singular superdense mass that the universe began as. All galaxies have the same origin and therefore the same original physics. What defined those original physics? I don't know. Personally, I suspect that Planck's Constant is the basic value of the universe that all others derive from. Mathematically, it seems to be the common factor of all matter and energy.

What I wonder is: What set Planck's Constant, and can it be altered?

The fact that all galaxies got the same origin and therefore same original physics is a perfectly valid explanation, I agree. However, my point was, if universe appeared out of nowhere in nowhere, undesigned and uncontrolled and resumed growing uncontrolled, things in our universe turned awfully stable from such a beginning. Besides, we do know that our universe indeed had a begining. How can something appear out of nowhere without being created?

Neither. The consistent nature of the action and reaction of energy and matter in no way constitutes "Countless Coincidences." Now if the trillionth digit of Pi turns out to be a picture of Jesus - then you've got a coincidence.

That's my question. How did the nature of the action and reaction of energy and matter turn out consistent? How is this possible if they are result of some uncontrolled expansion of matter? Is it because they are result of some sort of design. Or is it because that they can only exist when they are consistent? That means consistancy is a prerequisite for existance. I know bunch of inconsistent people who continues to exist. I know it's a really bad analogy but what is when we are talking about universe? Given its size...

Basically "Simpsons" in the future. That's what they call it here anyways...

How can they let an idiot such as Homer exist in future, when the genetic technology is very advanced? For amusement of others?

Why cant we say "matter has always been"? What makes God so special?

Because we know universe and hence matter has a beginning. GOD, being more than universe is above such a need for a beginning.

If the universe is billions of years old like scientists estimate, I'd say that it's a possibility that trillions of little "accidents" (rather just "happenings" -- "accidents" implies a directed force) occurred to form the universe as it is today. While things appear orderly, enough time has ellapsed to allow for any non-orderly systems implode upon themselves, leaving orderly designs to remain.

As for the part about shouldn't things be "messier." Well, the truth is, there are many "messy" aspects of the universe, nonetheleast with the human race. Why do humans have tailbones if they serve no purpose? Why does the eye need light in order to allow for a human to see? Why do so many defects occur in the genetic code? If the universe was designed, these aspects make the designer look very sloppy.
God is more of a big picture guy.

You are incorrect. The infinity of numbers, for example, is greater than the infinity of odd numbers. :p
so, if we divide infinity by 2 for infinite times, we will get zero?

You are incorrect. The infinity of numbers, for example, is greater than the infinity of odd numbers. :p
Although you are correct in calling him incorrect, you are also wrong. Mathematicians identify different "levels" of infinity as different infinite cardinalities. If two sets (i.e. the set of intigers and the set of odd integers) can be formed into ordered pairs such that each and every element in one set is grouped uniquely with another element in the other set, the sets are said to share the same cardinality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality).

In this particular example, one could simply count the odd numbers. 1 is the 1st odd, 3 is the 2nd, 5 is the 3rd, and so on. This yields the ordered pairs (1,1) (3,2) (5,3) etc. Although one of the sets always remains "ahead" so to speak, each and every element in one set will always be accounted for by a member of the other set, no matter how high you count.

There are different levels of infinity; your example just isn't a demonstration of that fact.

You are incorrect. The infinity of numbers, for example, is greater than the infinity of odd numbers. :p

Actually, no they arent. If you want to talk about countably and uncountably infinite, thats a different rabbit hole all together.

Because we know universe and hence matter has a beginning. GOD, being more than universe is above such a need for a beginning.

Matter, being more than universe is above such a need for a beginning.

Whats wrong with what I just said?

Because we know universe and hence matter has a beginning. GOD, being more than universe is above such a need for a beginning.
Matter springs out of nothing all the time. It's just generally in such small amounts that we would never notice it. Are you suggesting that God has a hand in that?

Matter, being more than universe is above such a need for a beginning.

Whats wrong with what I just said?

Matter as we know it exists only within our universe and our universe had a beginning. Again, matter as we know it isnt above a need for beginnig. If you are going to say universe formed within some sort of matter, that's as speculative as saying god created the universe.

Matter springs out of nothing all the time. It's just generally in such small amounts that we would never notice it.

Any example?

Matter as we know it exists only within our universe and our universe had a beginning. Again, matter as we know it isnt above a need for beginnig. If you are going to say universe formed within some sort of matter, that's as speculative as saying god created the universe.

Wrong, thermodynamics shows that matter is constantly being lost, as it transfers into heat energy. That is a scientific law. Therefore, our universe should be constantly losing matter to heat energy. Now, that means its impossible that matter wasn't created, or our Universe would have expired already, unless you believe in some infinite source of matter, which we have no knowledge of unless... (God, maybe?). So, how did matter show up? Wherever it came from, you are guaranteed there is less now than there used to be, and our universe itself is a time bomb.

There's no 3rd option, right? If so, what?

Obviously, this is a discussion about GOD but I didnt ask it directly, because:

a: GOD threads get too long and hence hard to follow;
b: I didnt want bunch of people quoting bible and arguing about it;
c: There are bunch of threads about it and I wanted to concentrate on this particular aspect.

I've discussed this with some people I know over time and I wonder what other people think.
Why am I discussing on macro/universe level? Well...on micro/sub atomic level things seem coincidental, as suggested by Quantum Theory, which is very popular. Or maybe not? maybe sub atomic particles overall behave suggested by chaos theory, meaning overall they are orderly?
Anyway, I know things on normal level (Earth, life as we know it) can be coicidental. It's just a statistical possibility given the size of the universe. Even if the possibility of intelligent life in a planet is like 1/1 trillion (is this a conservative guess?), there could be billions of intelligent life in universe.
So, my question. Doesnt universe seem too orderly for it to be a result of some explosion and uncontrolled growth? I mean are all those laws, theories, constants a result of chance? We've never been to other galaxies but I think via telescopes and stuff we are pretty sure gravity laws hold in other galaxies just as in ours. Shouldnt things be more messy if universe isnt designed? Like time going forward in one place and backward in other or like gravity attracting bodies in one place and repulsing in other? What do you guys think?

Why would you think that? You don't actually know how orderly the universe is, because you've only ever seen this one which means you have no frame of reference.

Why should things be more messy if the universe wasn't designed? What's the basis for this assertion?

And that's the problem with ID arguments. They're entirely foundationless.

Oh, and there is a third option. I have no reason to care how to universe came to be.

Any example?

Virtual particles.

Matter springs out of nothing all the time. It's just generally in such small amounts that we would never notice it. Are you suggesting that God has a hand in that?
What in the blue blazes are you talking about?

By the way, I hope Quantum Theory isn't going to be brought back into the discussion because no human being has ever fully understood it, or even understood it well enough on the scale we use for other sciences to even qualify as an expert. We just haven't got that science yet.

Why would you think that? You don't actually know how orderly the universe is, because you've only ever seen this one which means you have no frame of reference.

Why should things be more messy if the universe wasn't designed? What's the basis for this assertion?

And that's the problem with ID arguments. They're entirely foundationless.

Oh, and there is a third option. I have no reason to care how to universe came to be.

So, you come in, shoot off a really bad argument, and then attempt to cut the discussion off by feigning disinterest?

You don't need another universe to discern order. It's obviously present, in the fact that we exist as complex beings with an entire ecosystem that is interdependent on so many levels that it is mind-blowingly complex and almost impossible to predict what the exact effects will be of even a single species' extinction. That is all self-evident, and doesn't need to be supported any further, as you yourself can look out your window and see it now.

Now, lets move back into reality and out this wonderful parallel universe you've created in your mind.

Virtual particles.
Virtual particles are not composed of matter.


EDIT: Think *energy*

Virtual particles are not composed of matter.


EDIT: Think *energy*

...

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

That's my question. How did the nature of the action and reaction of energy and matter turn out consistent? How is this possible if they are result of some uncontrolled expansion of matter?

Because the energy and matter here are the same as the energy and matter elsewhere.

What in the blue blazes are you talking about?

By the way, I hope Quantum Theory isn't going to be brought back into the discussion because no human being has ever fully understood it, or even understood it well enough on the scale we use for other sciences to even qualify as an expert. We just haven't got that science yet.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4342393

Particle physics.

You don't need another universe to discern order. It's obviously present, in the fact that we exist as complex beings with an entire ecosystem that is interdependent on so many levels that it is mind-blowingly complex and almost impossible to predict what the exact effects will be of even a single species' extinction. That is all self-evident, and doesn't need to be supported any further, as you yourself can look out your window and see it now.

Now, lets move back into reality and out this wonderful parallel universe you've created in your mind.

Whoa, way to justify something subjectively.

Watch a piece of dynamite explode, catalogue its debris to within a millimeter, and watch footage of it over and over, then convince yourself that it was the only way such an explosion could occur.

Then watch a piece of dynamite explode in a different gravity (say, the moon's), and watch as the order that is so obviously present is suddenly playing by different rules.

That's like saying that we must've been designed because we're perfect for the Earth...instead of realizing that we're perfect for the Earth because we originated here.

Actually, no they arent. If you want to talk about countably and uncountably infinite, thats a different rabbit hole all together.
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/AllBrowsers/2413/TypesOfInfinity.asp

I read an interesting theory.

What if gravity is not a property of mass, but mass is a property of gravity? What if matter came about through bends or tears within the fabric of space? The theory is that holes within spacetime create a void in spacetime, and that void is matter.

What do you think?
I would think the two were aspects of the same thing, seeing that gravity without mass and vice versa would be meaningless.

Doesnt universe seem too orderly for it to be a result of some explosion and uncontrolled growth? I mean are all those laws, theories, constants a result of chance?

If there is to be any kind of viable discussion on this topic, we have to agree on what certain terms mean. Please define the following:

1) Imperfection
2) Order
3) Chance
4) Growth
5) Laws and/or Theories


And, since you brought it up here:

I think this proves that your definition of imperfect is imperfect itself. If there were no suffering and we were happy 100% of the time, we'd be like robots, shallow and without any depth. And how can you appreciate being happy if you are happy all the time? Being happy would be like breathing. Do you say "thank god, I just breathed again oh and again oh I'm so pleased about this one too"....?

"Imperfection" / Suffering...etc doesnt invalidate the existance of GOD, I think.

I'd also like your definitions of:

6) Suffering
7) Happiness
8) God

All eight of these terms have very different meanings for all of us. Just because we're using the same words doesn't necessarily mean that we're talking about the same thing.

Virtual particles.

Do they exist? Or just for theoratical purposes?


In this sense, virtual particles are an artifact of perturbation theory, and do not appear in a nonperturbative treatment. As such, their existence is questionable; however, the term is useful in informal, casual conversation, or in rendering concepts into layman's terms.


source: wiki

Wrong, thermodynamics shows that matter is constantly being lost, as it transfers into heat energy. That is a scientific law. Therefore, our universe should be constantly losing matter to heat energy. Now, that means its impossible that matter wasn't created, or our Universe would have expired already, unless you believe in some infinite source of matter, which we have no knowledge of unless... (God, maybe?). So, how did matter show up? Wherever it came from, you are guaranteed there is less now than there used to be, and our universe itself is a time bomb.

What's wrong? I'm arguing about matter as we know it can only exist within our universe, whether it exists or being transfered into energy...
To say matter exists outside our universe is as speculative as the existance of GOD. Because, since we live inside the universe and cant track back before the universe, we can never know what's outside the universe, whether it's some sort of "matter" or energy or whatever....

Whoa, way to justify something subjectively.

Watch a piece of dynamite explode, catalogue its debris to within a millimeter, and watch footage of it over and over, then convince yourself that it was the only way such an explosion could occur.

Then watch a piece of dynamite explode in a different gravity (say, the moon's), and watch as the order that is so obviously present is suddenly playing by different rules.

That's like saying that we must've been designed because we're perfect for the Earth...instead of realizing that we're perfect for the Earth because we originated here.

Universe is orderly. But I think this quote may explain better than me trying it. And less time consuming ;)


Evidence (E): There exists a complex physical system of material objects of varying sizes and characteristics that are connected in space and time, and which behave and interact according to a relatively small number of basic physical laws.



E includes many facts that are unlikely on the materialist hypothesis, for on that hypothesis the existence of the Universe and its order is ultimately a chance phenomenon. But this would require an amazing series of coincidences. Although natural processes (e.g., evolution) may explain the development of complex life forms from more simple ones, all such explanations presuppose very fundamental laws of physics. Such scientific explanations are not ultimate explanations of E. We are still faced with a dazzling array of coordinated physical laws that make our universe and many of its important features possible.

Life => Carbon =>Stars (stable and massive) =>Hydrogen atoms and gravitational force

1. The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history. But if rate of expansion could not vary much, neither could gravitational forces, for the rate of expansion depends on gravitational forces.

(2) If strong nuclear force is increased by 2%, there would be no protons (and hence no atoms)

(3) If the weak nuclear force is slightly stronger or weaker, there would be no hydrogen.

1. If slightly stronger, then hydrogen would be turned to helium.

2. If slightly weaker, then neutrons would not decay into protons.

1. If electromagnetism was slightly increased or decreased, stars would either be too cold or too hot. Gravity is 1039 weaker than electromagnetism. If it were 1033 weaker, then stars would be a billion times less massive and burn a million times faster.

2. Electrons must be much less massive than the proton for solids to exist.

3. Stable nucleides (basis for chemistry and biology) require neutron-proton mass difference to be exactly twice the electron's mass (otherwise neutrons would all be turned into protons or vice-versa).


http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Godandorderlyuniverse.html

I would think the two were aspects of the same thing, seeing that gravity without mass and vice versa would be meaningless.

No, its a chicken/egg question. Does gravity "produce" matter or does matter "produce" gravity?

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/AllBrowsers/2413/TypesOfInfinity.asp

Yes i know they types of infinity. The set of odd numbers and the set of whole numbers are both countably infinite. The set of rationals is uncountably infinite.

Infinity as a whole is just a representation of something thats never ending. Its impossible to compare the amount of objects in an infinite set because the number of objects is, well, infinite.

No, its a chicken/egg question. Does gravity "produce" matter or does matter "produce" gravity?
It's usually those kind of questions that create more confusion than provide answers. Along the same lines, one might just as well ask "Where is the beginning of a circle?" or "What side of a Moebius strip is the top side?"

I think I'll stick with the original idea.

If there is to be any kind of viable discussion on this topic, we have to agree on what certain terms mean. Please define the following:

All eight of these terms have very different meanings for all of us. Just because we're using the same words doesn't necessarily mean that we're talking about the same thing.



1) Imperfection : I cant define it. Something imperfect, like deafness, may actually lead to a better life for the deaf person than the life he'd lead if he could here (hence more "perfect"). Lets just say not ideal.
2) Order : Obeying to some criteria.
3) Chance : A coincident, result of something uncontrolled and undesigned, leading to something uncontrolled and undesigned.
4) Growth : Expansion.
5) Laws and/or Theories : ?



6) Suffering : ?
7) Happiness : ?
8) God: Some sort of consciousness, life force. Definately not a "man" in skies.

? means why are you asking? Is there any controversy there?

There exists a complex physical system of material objects of varying sizes and characteristics that are connected in space and time, and which behave and interact according to a relatively small number of basic physical laws.

Oh, by the gods.

The characteristics, as we've observed, have been described by us using a small number (small relative to what, I wonder) of physical laws. Whether these are actually the laws governing those characteristics, we don't know.

http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Godandorderlyuniverse.html

Those people completely ignore the anthropic principle. As mentioned, the strong nuclear force is as it is because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it.

Of all the possible universes, aren't we vastly more likely (by random chance) to appear in the one that actually supports our own existence?

Oh, by the gods.

The characteristics, as we've observed, have been described by us using a small number (small relative to what, I wonder) of physical laws. Whether these are actually the laws governing those characteristics, we don't know.


What they mean is that there are many ordered patterns whether caused by the explanations in our laws or something else...



Those people completely ignore the anthropic principle. As mentioned, the strong nuclear force is as it is because if it weren't we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it.

Of all the possible universes, aren't we vastly more likely (by random chance) to appear in the one that actually supports our own existence?

If this multiple universe theory is true, how do you know that there arent any macro order that includes all universes? Like Earth supports life (orderly) but there are also many other planets that doesnt (unorderly). So life here is a statistical possibility, yes, however all the planets belong in an order (our universe)

No, its a chicken/egg question. Does gravity "produce" matter or does matter "produce" gravity?
The latest theories say "neither." The current belief among most M-theorists is that gravity originates from somewhere outside our own universe ( perhaps from one of the theorized 11 dimensions ).

The latest theories say "neither." The current belief among most M-theorists is that gravity originates from somewhere outside our own universe ( perhaps from one of the theorized 11 dimensions ).

Fuck...Our universe is already infinite and why the hell did we start thinking about outside our universe or infinite universes? I want to go back to Newton times, so much simpler...

Fuck...Our universe is already infinite and why the hell did we start thinking about outside our universe or infinite universes? I want to go back to Newton times, so much simpler...
Our universe is finite but unbounded, which means that it's curved back in upon itself in at least five dimensions, somewhat like the interior of a three-dimensional sphere would be for two-dimensional beings.

Our universe is finite but unbounded, which means that it's curved back in upon itself in at least five dimensions, somewhat like the interior of a three-dimensional sphere would be for two-dimensional beings.

5 dimensions?

If this multiple universe theory is true, how do you know that there arent any macro order that includes all universes? Like Earth supports life (orderly) but there are also many other planets that doesnt (unorderly). So life here is a statistical possibility, yes, however all the planets belong in an order (our universe)

You still don't get it. The anthropic principle doesn't require that there are multiple universes. Those other possible universes don't actually need to exist - they only need be possible.

But even ignoring that, you've just been reduced to uncertainty. You're asking how we know there "arent any macro order that includes all universes". Of course, we don't know that, bot nor do we have any reason to believe that such a thing does exist, which puts us right back where we belong: uncertainty.

The problem with ID is that it posits an explanation we don't need. Whether the universe had a designer or arose from random chance, there's simply no reason to care one way or the other. As yet, neither has measurable consequences, so there's no point in choosing a side. And that's why science doesn't.

5 dimensions?
Probably, although I wouldn't want to be quoted on a specific number. I'm not that well-versed in either quantum mechanics or M-theory.

M-theory states that eleven dimensions are necessary to explain all the phenomena.

You still don't get it. The anthropic principle doesn't require that there are multiple universes. Those other possible universes don't actually need to exist - they only need be possible.

But even ignoring that, you've just been reduced to uncertainty. You're asking how we know there "arent any macro order that includes all universes". Of course, we don't know that, bot nor do we have any reason to believe that such a thing does exist, which puts us right back where we belong: uncertainty.


If anthropic principle doesn't require that there are multiple universes, it's really silly. Yes, maybe this is the only universe we could exist. But if there arent other universes that'll make ours a statistical possibility, the possibility of our universe to exist (hence us) is almost impossible. Actually so almost that we can even ignore "almost". Given such odds for the existance of our universe via meterialist (no design, no control) means, it is more likely that some supernatural force (GOD) is involved.


The problem with ID is that it posits an explanation we don't need. Whether the universe had a designer or arose from random chance, there's simply no reason to care one way or the other. As yet, neither has measurable consequences, so there's no point in choosing a side. And that's why science doesn't.

An explanation we dont need? Have you missed the philosophical debates for the past thousands of years??

If anthropic principle doesn't require that there are multiple universes, it's really silly. Yes, maybe this is the only universe we could exist. But if there arent other universes that'll make ours a statistical possibility, the possibility of our universe to exist (hence us) is almost impossible. Actually so almost that we can even ignore "almost". Given such odds for the existance of our universe via meterialist (no design, no control) means, it is more likely that some supernatural force (GOD) is involved.
But this universe does exist. The dice have already been cast. If they hadn't come up the way they did, we wouldn't be here to ask these questions.

An explanation we dont need? Have you missed the philosophical debates for the past thousands of years??
I actually have a degree in Philosophy.

I'm familiar with these metaphysical questions, but until we've solved the epistemology behind them they simply don't matter.

As long as the answer to the question, "Does God exist?" has no measureable consequences, why does it need an answer?

But this universe does exist. The dice have already been cast. If they hadn't come up the way they did, we wouldn't be here to ask these questions.


But the question is how does this universe exist? Via materialist means (something like 1/1 trillion * billionth chance of someone winning lottery?) or via some interference of some sort of intelligent consciousness? What is more likely?


I actually have a degree in Philosophy.

I'm familiar with these metaphysical questions, but until we've solved the epistemology behind them they simply don't matter.

As long as the answer to the question, "Does God exist?" has no measureable consequences, why does it need an answer?

If GOD was proven, I guess more money would go to spiritual organisations. Hence a "measureable consequence" among many.

But the question is how does this universe exist? Via materialist means (something like 1/1 trillion * billionth chance of someone winning lottery?) or via some interference of some sort of intelligent consciousness? What is more likely?
Do we have a single piece of evidence that points us in either direction?

And if we decide that there was intereference, what was its ultimate source? The same question then arises. Either the chain goes back infinitely, or at some point something arises on its own.

I think that the occurence of life on Earth is incredibly improbable. But that doesn't mean terrestrial life was designed. I see it this way: there are an infinite number of parallel universes, all differeing slightly from one another in terms of initial conditions, different timelines being followed, etc. So, there are trillions (quadrillions? Quintillions?) of universes in which, for one reason or another, life never evolved on Earth. In contrast, there are relatively few universes in which the conditions were just right and life did evolve. Of course, the only type of universe capable of being experienced is one that evolves intelligent life, so to that intelligent life, it seems like their universe is special, and evolved life in the face of impossible odds. But the truth is that that one living universe is lost in a sea of parallel, lifeless ones that we cannot see.

Life on earth can be incredibly unlikely, but that doesn't point towards intelligent design at all. Life (especially sentient life) on any planet is highly unlikely, but statistically, a few of them will wind up with living things on them, and a smaller number with intelligent life. I believe in God, but it's pointless, counterproductive, as well as impossible to try and prove God's existence through science.

I would think more likely than intelligent design would be unintelligent perception. After all, when the Earth was at the center of the system, planets zipped around in all sorts of crazy ways that made no sense at all. Once the sun was moved to the center, then everything was much more straightforward.

No one wonders how come a marble knows to go to the exact bottom of a hamispherical bowl. That's just the way it works. The universe? Same thing. Eventually, it'll make sense.

Do we have a single piece of evidence that points us in either direction?


Evidence being the improbability of this universe existing without interference and without being a statistical possibility among infinite universes (if we discard infinite universe theory)


And if we decide that there was intereference, what was its ultimate source? The same question then arises. Either the chain goes back infinitely, or at some point something arises on its own.

This has been answered...

Evidence being the improbability of this universe existing without interference and without being a statistical possibility among infinite universes (if we discard infinite universe theory)
But we don't know how improbable it is because we don't have anything against which to measure it.

This has been answered...
I'm going to crawl back through the thread looking for that one.

Whoops, misread universe as university. I thought it was an odd question to ask. It's s building of course it was designed, but looking at some of the buildings one could almost imagine that the it was a coincidence that the architect actually manage to connect up any lines on a diagram, and coincidence that series of people actually managed to stack a pile of bricks that roughly remsembled those lines, and finally coincidence that some sod thought that it might be possible to torture young adults inside these brick kilns and never open any windows or turn on the air conditioning.

Ok, I'm done.

Most (maybe all) theories suggest universe had a beginnig, including the most popular one, big bang theory.
No it doesn't. That's a misrepresentation of the big bang theory.

We're simply unable to do the math or deduce anything about the state of the universe prior to the big bang, since that initial explosion appears to have obliterated any evidence of what might have preceded it. We certainly haven't spotted any of that evidence, yet.

But it does not state unequivocally that the universe did not exist prior to Event 1.

This has been answered...
Okay, all I've found is your repeated assertions that the designer is eternal, which appears to be yet another baseless assumption to support your baseless theory.

I suggest you visit a small English village near East Horsley, in Surrey, south-west of London...

Ockham.

But we don't know how improbable it is because we don't have anything against which to measure it.


I'm going to crawl back through the thread looking for that one.

We know how improbable it is:

For ex:


The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history. But if rate of expansion could not vary much, neither could gravitational forces, for the rate of expansion depends on gravitational forces.


So the probability of universal recession and expansion going in an "acceptable" velocity is 1 in a million? That's just one variable. When we multiply other variables like


If strong nuclear force is increased by 2%, there would be no protons (and hence no atoms)


and other thousands or maybe millions or maybe billions of variables, we know that the existance of universe is VERY improbable....

No it doesn't. That's a misrepresentation of the big bang theory.

We're simply unable to do the math or deduce anything about the state of the universe prior to the big bang, since that initial explosion appears to have obliterated any evidence of what might have preceded it. We certainly haven't spotted any of that evidence, yet.

But it does not state unequivocally that the universe did not exist prior to Event 1.

A misrepresentation of the big bang theory?? You are utterly wrong...


The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.

The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.


http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html


THE BIG BANG

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.


http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Okay, all I've found is your repeated assertions that the designer is eternal, which appears to be yet another baseless assumption to support your baseless theory.

I suggest you visit a small English village near East Horsley, in Surrey, south-west of London...

Ockham.

You still couldnt explain how our universe may exist via coincidences (meterialistic hypothesis). Your assumptions and hypothesis is much more baseless then mine and you were wrong in your claims about "we cant know anything"....

Ockham? Why?

Final note. I'm not trying to prove anything here and I also know I cant. I'm just asking what is more likely....

Probably, although I wouldn't want to be quoted on a specific number. I'm not that well-versed in either quantum mechanics or M-theory.

M-theory states that eleven dimensions are necessary to explain all the phenomena.

Insane in the M-brane. :D

We know how improbable it is:

For ex:

The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history. But if rate of expansion could not vary much, neither could gravitational forces, for the rate of expansion depends on gravitational forces.


So the probability of universal recession and expansion going in an "acceptable" velocity is 1 in a million? That's just one variable. When we multiply other variables like



and other thousands or maybe millions or maybe billions of variables, we know that the existance of universe is VERY improbable....
The part in bold is a non-sequiter. The quote said nothing about relative probabilities.

We do not know what the probability is of the universal constants being what they are. We do not even know whether it is sensible to pose the question, because we do not know how many other universes there are, if any; or how their characteristics might vary.

The part in bold is a non-sequiter. The quote said nothing about relative probabilities.

We do not know what the probability is of the universal constants being what they are. We do not even know whether it is sensible to pose the question, because we do not know how many other universes there are, if any; or how their characteristics might vary.

We don't even know if life can only develop from a carbon-base. :)

We don't even know if life can only develop from a carbon-base. :)
IIRC correctly, Isaac Asimov proposed a viable silicon/ammonia alternative.

The part in bold is a non-sequiter. The quote said nothing about relative probabilities.

We do not know what the probability is of the universal constants being what they are. We do not even know whether it is sensible to pose the question, because we do not know how many other universes there are, if any; or how their characteristics might vary.

Yeah, I guess I was wrong. "The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history." One part in a million from its actual values. How many parts are there? Infinite? ( The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe can be anything) So the probability is 1/million / infinite. When we use limit, it is 0. Hence impossible...

We don't even know if life can only develop from a carbon-base. :)

Since we are here and we are of carbon-base, even if life developed from somthing else, it had to turn to carbon to form us. Hence the quote stands....

Yeah, I guess I was wrong. "The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history." One part in a million from its actual values. How many parts are there? Infinite? ( The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe can be anything) So the probability is 1/million / infinite. When we use limit, it is 0. Hence impossible...

I knew it! :eek:

We don't exist!!!

Since we are here and we are of carbon-base, even if life developed from somthing else, it had to turn to carbon to form us. Hence the quote stands....

Maybe they could make us out of anything.

Maybe they just had a lot of spare carbon lying around. :)

Yeah, I guess I was wrong. "The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe could not vary one part in a million from its actual values if carbon based life could ever evolve in the Universe at any point in its history." One part in a million from its actual values. How many parts are there? Infinite? ( The velocity of recession and expansion of the Universe can be anything) So the probability is 1/million / infinite. When we use limit, it is 0. Hence impossible...
You're assuming that other values are somehow possible; and that they have measurable reative probabilities attached to them. I know of no evidence for either assumption.

Alternatively, in speculative mode, if there are infinite universes, with differing physical constants, the probability of at least one having the correct configuration for life (and hence our speculations) approaches one.

Maybe they could make us out of anything.

Maybe they just had a lot of spare carbon lying around. :)
No fair.:(

I want to be made out of sodium: more explosive fun! (http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/)

No fair.:(

I want to be made out of sodium: more explosive fun! (http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/)

Yes, but then you'd have to bathe in kerosene. :p

You're assuming that other values are somehow possible; and that they have measurable reative probabilities attached to them. I know of no evidence for either assumption.


And how do we know other values arent possible? If we dont know what is possible or not, we have to assume it can be anything....


Alternatively, in speculative mode, if there are infinite universes, with differing physical constants, the probability of at least one having the correct configuration for life (and hence our speculations) approaches one.

Yeah but if you are going to speculate that, please refer to previous discussions about it.

And how do we know other values arent possible? If we dont know what is possible or not, we have to assume it can be anything....



.......
Hence we cannot assign any meaningful probability to the occurance.

Otherwise, all you're doing is deriving your conclusion directly from your assumption, which is tautology.

Yes, but then you'd have to bathe in kerosene. :p
Meh. Can't be any worse than the after-shave I bought at the car boot sale last week.

Hence we cannot assign any meaningful probability to the occurance.

Otherwise, all you're doing is deriving your conclusion directly from your assumption, which is tautology.

If we cant assign any meaningful probability to the occurance, then the probability is 1 / 1 million, since we know it cant move 1 part in a million.

Well...on micro/sub atomic level things seem coincidental, as suggested by Quantum Theory, which is very popular. Or maybe not? maybe sub atomic particles overall behave suggested by chaos theory, meaning overall they are orderly?
Anyway, I know things on normal level (Earth, life as we know it) can be coicidental. It's just a statistical possibility given the size of the universe. Even if the possibility of intelligent life in a planet is like 1/1 trillion (is this a conservative guess?), there could be billions of intelligent life in universe.
So, my question. Doesnt universe seem too orderly for it to be a result of some explosion and uncontrolled growth? I mean are all those laws, theories, constants a result of chance? We've never been to other galaxies but I think via telescopes and stuff we are pretty sure gravity laws hold in other galaxies just as in ours. Shouldnt things be more messy if universe isnt designed? Like time going forward in one place and backward in other or like gravity attracting bodies in one place and repulsing in other? What do you guys think?

I am not overly religious, but I do believe that there is a design to the universe and hence a designer. I don't claim to know WHO the designer is because let's face it there are so many religions and any one of them could be right. I think I'll put my money on God as the designer, but I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

I also believe that there is such a thing as coincidences, serendipity, and just plain craziness happening in the universe all the time. The 1/1 trillion probability for other intelligent life in the universe is correct according to S.E.T.I and when we do find other intelligent life in the universe, or vice versa, I think it will be more of a coincidence or serendipity than due to a systematic search.

Life is not orderly or predictable, so I believe that the universe is a both a designed and random place. Let's face it even the most planned out scientific experiments can get unexpected results so why not the universe?

If we cant assign any meaningful probability to the occurance, then the probability is 1 / 1 million, since we know it cant move 1 part in a million.
No.*

You're assuming that it could move, that the values could take other values. That's an unsupported assumption.

You're also implicitly assuming upper and lower limits on the range of 'possible' values, and that each such value has an equal probability of occuring. Neither assumption has any evidence to support it.

You cannot assign any meaningful probability to the observed set of physical constants in this universe being what they are. They are othe only set observed, and, in all likelihood, the only set that can ever be observed by inhabitants of this universe.

All you can say about the probability of this universe of ours existing is that it has a conditional probabilty of 1. However, this is not a particularly meaningful statement, given that it is conditional on our having observed this universe of ours. Again, tautology.




*Unless you're planning to become an economist of course [/statistician's joke]

No.*

You're assuming that it could move, that the values could take other values. That's an unsupported assumption.

You're also implicitly assuming upper and lower limits on the range of 'possible' values, and that each such value has an equal probability of occuring. Neither assumption has any evidence to support it.

You cannot assign any meaningful probability to the observed set of physical constants in this universe being what they are. They are othe only set observed, and, in all likelihood, the only set that can ever be observed by inhabitants of this universe.

All you can say about the probability of this universe of ours existing is that it has a conditional probabilty of 1. However, this is not a particularly meaningful statement, given that it is conditional on our having observed this universe of ours. Again, tautology.




*Unless you're planning to become an economist of course [/statistician's joke]

The values can change. There is a good evidence that expansion rate has been increasing.
But I guess you can change your question if we know if it can change beyond acceptable levels? Well, since it cant change 1 part in a million, we know it's a very sensitive rate. And the question is, how a such a senstive rate, a "balance" (although it's increasing) can be reached if it's just a result of some random "explosion"?

The values can change. There is a good evidence that expansion rate has been increasing.
But I guess you can change your question if we know if it can change beyond acceptable levels? Well, since it cant change 1 part in a million, we know it's a very sensitive rate. And the question is, how a such a senstive rate, a "balance" (although it's increasing) can be reached if it's just a result of some random "explosion"?
In asking that question you depart the solid landscape of probabilities and set sail on the seas of speculation, blown by the winds of cosmological argument, and I take my leave.

(Though I don't know that we've established that the 'explosion' was either random, or the cause of the observed physical laws of this universe.)

In asking that question you depart the solid landscape of probabilities and set sail on the seas of speculation, blown by the winds of cosmological argument, and I take my leave.

(Though I don't know that we've established that the 'explosion' was either random, or the cause of the observed physical laws of this universe.)

Before the big bang, there was "nothing", so yes, observed physics is a result of the expansion.
If you dont believe anything which controls and/or designs this process, doesnt that mean the expansion is random, as in a result of some phenomenon?

Before the big bang, there was "nothing", so yes, observed physics is a result of the expansion.
If you dont believe anything which controls and/or designs this process, doesnt that mean the expansion is random, as in a result of some phenomenon?
Assuming big bang, observed physics are observed subsequent to the explosion (obviously), but we do not know whether they pre-dated the explosion, or came into being at the same time or subsequently. Even if they came into being subsequently, I'm not sure we can say that they are the result of the explosion.

I'm not sure I understand what the last two parts of your final sentance mean. However, calling the initial conditions of the universe 'random' seems to me a misapplication of the term, which (looking back) you are using as the basis for your statements about probability and 'coincidence'. Randomness in probability theory has a fairly precise meaning, so as to allow one to calcalute odds and so forth. It doesn't, or at least we don't know if it does (or can), apply to the initial conditions. It may that there can only be one possible configuration of physical laws for a universe, or a finite set of such configurations.

I think you're inching your way along the cosmological argument here, trying to get to a (rational) prime cause. I can understand the motivation behind that, but it looks like a dead end to me. Whether you go to a designer or some unmotivated 'phenomenon' as the cause of the big bang, you still have the problem of that first cause itself being uncaused. Hence the previous reference to Occam - you're adding a variable to your model of the universe without reducing the uncertainty in that model. Occam's razor, the principle of parsimony, suggests both designer and 'phenomenon' be dropped from the rational model. Whether you prefer one, the other or something or nothing else entirely is a matter of subjective taste, not reason.

We know how improbable it is
You've made a mistake here. Your math only works if you assume that the variables are all independent and determined randomly. You have no reason to believe that other values for those vairables are even possible.

You have no information. This is my point.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
That NASA link is simplified to teach to children. U Michigan does a much better job is pointing out that we don't know what or if anything existed prior to the big bang. It does not state that nothing did. And that's what I said - we don't know what happened (if anything) to cause the big bang.

You still couldnt explain how our universe may exist via coincidences (meterialistic hypothesis). Your assumptions and hypothesis is much more baseless then mine and you were wrong in your claims about "we cant know anything"....

Ockham? Why?

Final note. I'm not trying to prove anything here and I also know I cant. I'm just asking what is more likely....
And I'm saying you have no evidence at all, one way or the other. The only real difference between the positions is that ID requires you posit the existence of a creator, and the other doesn't. But without any evidence at all to suggest that a creator is necessary, supposing one is an extra unjustified assumption. And Ockham wants you to minimse those.