Ye Religion Thread

[Whirlingdervish]

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.

agreed. Few people seem to take into account that here on Earth, the only place we've ever been able to record evidence of any life, we can find life in such diversity that it doesn't always require sunlight to survive (tubeworms on the ocean floor) or oxygen to breath, or even water in reasonable quantities... Life (as we define it) is constantly finding new ways to thrive where nothing could previously survive.
As far as we've been able to tell, life on earth didn't even begin with life-forms that could breathe our current atmosphere.

I think that the number of planets that "could" support life, is just a small sub-group of the much larger group of planets where life is capable of existing in varying forms that we have never observed (-1 or 2 of the conditions required for life here.. like warmth,atmosphere,moisture...)
The level of adaptability that known living organisms display would make the chances of extra-terrestrial life existing in this un-measurably large universe, pretty darn good.

[QuakeDuke]

If everybody in history was like that, we'd still be living in caves.

And working for Geico! 

QD

[Whirlingdervish]

selling dino-insurance?

 

[DaHanG]

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).

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.

current scientific explanations regard life as being special, but not a lottery like you believe.

the universe came from a singularity, not 'nothing'.

if we don't know enough about god scientifically, we don't make assumptions that he/she/it even exists. in the abscence of evidence for the existence of something, it's unscientific to say that particular something exists. that's why it's called faith (belief without evidence). having a strong inner conviction that god exists, or having him personally revealed to you is not how science works. :>.

[reaper]

current 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 universe came from a singularity, not 'nothing'.

i guess the question would be: how and why is the singularity always there?  i don't think we know enough about this to make comparisons to other theories yet.

for the record, god has not revealed himself to me 

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

i don't think we know enough about this to make comparisons to other theories yet.

No, BUT BY GOLLY WE'RE GETTING THERE !!!
 

[DaHanG]

current 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.

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.

it seems to me you're the king of the god of the gaps. since science can't explain everything and you don't like the concept of no supernatural guidance for life, god must exist.

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.

seriously, if you're going to say that we can't understand how planets are being formed (physically observable through our telescopes) because we don't know EVERYTHING about the big bang, how can you say whether the big bang's probability for life being possible (not observable, only speculation) is high/moderate/low since we know so little?

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?

[quadz]

the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low.

Do you have any links explaining the theory behind this claim?

From the Stephen Hawking paper I posted, he's saying theory predicted why all these stars and galaxies would form--and that the COBE satellite data backs up the theory.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low.

Man, even I know better than that. Of course the Big Bang caused it. Atleast based on the sientific facts that we have to day. Who knows, mabey some new discovery will shed light on another possble explanation. But for now, I agree. It was the Big Bang.

That's how God did it. He put all the ingredients in place, lined them up, switched out a few, made a few slight calibrations, and lit the fuse.

[DaHanG]

never underestimate the power of zeus.

[metaL]

anyone that believes in the big bang, in my opinion, has some serious mental issues.  To me, the chances of such an event taking place, and as a result creating such as place as Earth which is close to perfection a myriad of ways (lets just keep it simple and talk about Earth, let alone the rest of the entire universe and what may exist beyond) is closer to impossible than can be conceived by man.  i havent read any of this thread but i tend to support that events are caused.  no one knows what happened millions of years ago, so quit arguing about it... but their must have been an initial cause. that initial cause is what some theists, such as myself, believe is God.  No one can say that the universe has always existed, as if time spans backwards on to infinity.  Infinity is a concept; an idea.  It is inquantifyable in the physical realm and those who make sorry attempts to do so are profoundly mislead.

Just my 2 cents, peace.

[reaper]

the probability for the big bang to produce a universe like this is very very low.

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.

[quadz]

anyone that believes in the big bang, in my opinion, has some serious mental issues.

Fascinating.  What's your opinion on General Relativity?


Regards,

[DaHanG]

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.

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".

if by originate you mean "came from" then of course it did. you, however, said life came about DURING the INCEPTION of the universe, in which i am amazing you still failed to see after even quoting yourself.

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.

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.).

what comparisons are being made when we simply OBSERVE planets being formed with telescopes?

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?

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.

of course it's 'lucky' in a sense that life - LIKE THIS - came about. that doesn't mean if the universe was slightly different that life - in some other sense - is highly improbable. i was EXTREMELY lucky to be born on exactly july 19, 1988 (out of all the possible dates). i was pretty lucky that i was born in usa (something like 2030 million out of a population of 5 billion or so at the time). i was very lucky that i was born in florida out of every region of the world, extremely lucky to have been born in the palm beach county, and it was statistically almost impossible to have been born in lake worth, florida at 6:23 pm out of every possible location. i'll even leave out the fact that i was a human instead of one of 100 million+ possible species so our heads don't explode.

bottom line: we have to accept what we see, no matter how improbable my birthdate/location was, it did indeed happen. and yes, in a sense by accident (i had no control over being born in Cairo, Egypt - Africa April 2nd, 992 BC).

i guess the question would be: how and why is the singularity always there?

If 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.

like i said, god of the gaps :>.

[quadz]

i guess the question would be: how and why is the singularity always there?

If 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.

No, what I mean is such an answer solves nothing.