given 10 trillion oppurtunities for lets say a "1 in a 100 million shot for conditions to be adequate for life to come about" (i suspect the chance for life is in fact not this extreme). this leads to an assumption that approx. 100,000 planets should have life on them. it's hardly winning a lottery given the oppurtunity presented in this chaotic universe.
If everybody in history was like that, we'd still be living in caves.
Quote from: dahangto say everything must have a cause, god must as well (as russel said). in the very BEGINNING there should NOT be a highly complex all-powerful being, because that in itself requires a HUGE explanation (far greater than any universe).life such as ours forms by improbable chance, according to current scientific explanations, regarding the inception of the universe. and you really can't make a comparison (on scientific grounds) between god, and the universe existing forever or coming from nothing, because we don't know enough about either.
to say everything must have a cause, god must as well (as russel said). in the very BEGINNING there should NOT be a highly complex all-powerful being, because that in itself requires a HUGE explanation (far greater than any universe).
current scientific explanations regard life as being special, but not a lottery like you belie fromve.
the universe came from a singularity, not 'nothing'.
i don't think we know enough about this to make comparisons to other theories yet.
Quote from: dahangcurrent scientific explanations regard life as being special, but not a lottery like you belie fromve.science shows that this life originated from randomness (of four physical properties) during the inception of the universe. based on this random event you will get a universe that can sustain life, or not sustain life. i would categorize this life differently than life that lives in a two-dimensional world, and so on. unfortunately science can't conceptualize this process. in any event, the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low.
the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low.
the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low.Quote from: quadzDo you have any links explaining the theory behind this claim?
Do you have any links explaining the theory behind this claim?
"the remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
anyone that believes in the big bang, in my opinion, has some serious mental issues.
Quote from: dahangi don't know how you've concluded that life originated from randomness during the inception of the universe. the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, and life on earth came about 3.5 billion years ago. life did NOT originate during the beginning of the universe.in some respect life did indeed originate from the universe. proper reasoning indicates: we don't know how much more understanding/explanation, lies in paste tense. if you are talking about the creation of life, and planets, context of conversation can be drawn to our lack of scientific knowledge, at the earliest events we "understand".
i don't know how you've concluded that life originated from randomness during the inception of the universe. the big bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago, and life on earth came about 3.5 billion years ago. life did NOT originate during the beginning of the universe.
Quote from: dahangto use you're own quotes against you - "the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low." - (talking about planets being formed) -->"i'm just saying until we know more (about the creation of the universe) the explanation is incomplete", therefore we should not conclude that the probability of the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low. life doesn't evolve by accident, darwanism isn't random. it's interesting science predicts life(as we know it) requires extremley unlikley things to happen. you can take what you want from that. what i said was not contradictory, we can derive a lot of information from the big bang (such as how unlikely it is for life to form from it). however that doesn't mean we know enough to make scientific comparisons about further explanations (how something is there, what caused it, etc.).
to use you're own quotes against you - "the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low." - (talking about planets being formed) -->"i'm just saying until we know more (about the creation of the universe) the explanation is incomplete", therefore we should not conclude that the probability of the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low.
Quote from: dahanghave you concluded that there is only _one_ possible universe for life to come about and an infinite number of universes unsuitable for life? shouldn't there be an infinite number of possibilities on both sides of the spectrum?to get a universe suitable for life - like this - you need to be extremely lucky. for any life you still are dealing with very low probabilities. you could put it on a graph, and universes that can't sustain life would be more likely to form.
have you concluded that there is only _one_ possible universe for life to come about and an infinite number of universes unsuitable for life? shouldn't there be an infinite number of possibilities on both sides of the spectrum?
Quote from: reaperi guess the question would be: how and why is the singularity always there?Quote from: quadzIf you're going to ask that question, you can't solve it by saying God was always there.you can answer things anyway you want, someone finding your explanation reasonable is another story. i think it's reasonable that we don't know enough information about how, and why the singularity is there. since we don't know enough (practically anything considering the scope) of why and how the singularity is there, i wouldn't find it reasonable to say it's more likely it was just there. you can look at darwanism, and say things can become complex from something simple - sure - you could then relate this to the beggining of our understanding of the universe. this doesn't mean it's more reasonable (by scientific methods) that there is no god, and that something is just there. we are lacking to much information for comparison. i look at the big bang theory, and say it supports an argument for a higher power. this is because i don't think things happen by accidental cause (comprehension of gods cause is irrelevent in this point) , and life doesn't form from unlikley probabilities.
i guess the question would be: how and why is the singularity always there?Quote from: quadzIf you're going to ask that question, you can't solve it by saying God was always there.
If you're going to ask that question, you can't solve it by saying God was always there.
Quote from: reaperi guess the question would be: how and why is the singularity always there?Quote from: quadzIf you're going to ask that question, you can't solve it by saying God was always there.you can answer things anyway you want, someone finding your explanation reasonable is another story.