blood_pardon wrote:I copy and pasted your entire post and put it on an atheist site and I really dont know how to respond.... I shouldnt have done it I know but Can you help me respond ?
i can help you. But i think you should develop your own skills to answer by your own. That will help you to firm your own faith. You can use the search button of this forum for determined topics or words, or search with google, to find answers, which you can use in your debates. If you don't know, just ask.
What version do you want - String thoery where there are N universes
why do you think String theory should be a better answer, if even specialists in the field of String theory have no clue at all, what it is all about:
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/m-theory-brane-theory-t222.htmLast December ('05), physicists held the 23rd Solvay Conference in Brussels, Belgium. Amongst the many topics covered in the conference was the subject matter of string theory. This theory combines the apparently irreconcilable domains of quantum physics and relativity.
David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including:
"We don't know what we are talking about" whilst referring to string theory as well as "The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity."
beside this, you would need one to 10^500 attempts to get a life permitting universe. According to Borels law, it would be a impossible endavour.
The problem is, as I understand it, that string theory (or, more generally, the theory that physicist call "M-theory") seems to allow a very large number of possible solutions, or as the physicists call them, vacuua (as in the plural of "vacuum"). In fact, there are roughly 10-to-the-500th-power vacuua. That's an immense number that I don't even know how to describe except by using scientific notation. It's much more than a googol, or even a googol of googols. But it's less than a googolplex.
It's about 10^109! (10-to-the-109-factorial). (Oops. Obviously not.)
So rather than asking "how do we manipulate the mathematics to choose the one vacuum that represents our universe?" string theoriests like Susskind are saying, all these vacuums are allowed and all describe possible universes. In one or two of them the photon mass is zero and the electron has a mass of 0.511 MeV (and...), but in others the graviton is massive and quarks can be light-years apart and atoms can't even form and nothing is the way it seems here. And in still others...,
well, you get the picture, times 10^500.so truly not a very convincing hypotheses.
Hawkings latest piece where it's shown/claimed/said/ect [haven't read it] that the laws of the universe will create something where there is nothing. Do you want the more general QM that allows something to come from nothing?
yes, please show me, how something can arise from the absence of any thing. Thats better than magic
Creation isn't a better explanation as it explains nothing.
What ??!! God is the ultimate explanation. Once God is detected as the origin of the universe, we can rest, and start a completely new inquiry and research. That is truly exiting. To now the creator of the universe.
There is no explanatory power.
bollock. Onces the cause of the universe is detected, the research finds a end.
It doesn't answer any scientific questions about how thing happened
Neither is it the goal of theism.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/philosophy-and-god-f14/basics-of-theism-t368.htmTheism is a metaphysical, not pseudoscientific, position that can complement rather than violate scientific principles and knowledge. It's an interpretation of all available experience and empirical observations, not a hypothesis concerning any specific observation. That's why demanding empirical proof of God's existence, as if God were an object within the empirical universe, is a category error, and why its lack doesn't make theism irrational.
- There is nothing gained by invoking that.
Invoking God, we can start to ask, what goals the creator had to cause our universe, and what goals he had with us. And we can find the true meaning of our existence. Want it better than that ?
There is no fine tuning.
thats pure bollock and wishful thinking. Even atheists as Stenger, Davies, Hawking, Carter, Dawkins, Penrose, Krauss, and many other astrophysicists admit the universe is extraordinarly finetuned to life.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htmFred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/fine-tuning-the-multiverse-theory.htm
Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.125.
The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life… It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at their beauty.
George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”
Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”
Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”
John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”
George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”
Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”
Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”
Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”
Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”
Stephen Hawking
(British astrophysicist)
“What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? …
Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?”
Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”
Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”
Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”
Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”
Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”
Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”
This has been covered in other threads for you. "The hold was created for the puddle, as it fit perfectly."
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/puddle-thinking-t241.htmThe evolutionary critique is fine as far as it goes. It does not, however, go very far.
Yes, evolution can provide at least a partial explanation of the appearance of design in biology: biological organisms evolved to fit their environment.
It cannot, however, explain the appearance of design in the circumstances of the Big Bang, our galaxy - solar - moon - earth tuning to life, or in the laws of physics. These, unlike biological organisms, have not evolved. Modern design arguments, which tend to focus on physics rather than biology, can therefore resist the evolutionary critique.
Abiogenesis. There are ogranic molecules regularly found in space in the atmosphere of other planets.
So what ? Abiogenesis is a non answer at all. its a completely failed hypotheses,and leads straight to God as the far better and more convincing answer for the appearance of life on our planet.
Evolution. There is a lot of stuff in DNA that can be removed with zero effect. Pretty shitty design, but perfectly consistent with evolution.
Evolution has pretty nothing to do with the appearance of DNA, and its information content.
consciousness, the hability of thinking and speech, and morality.
Evolution.
complete fail again. The best specialists in their field have no answer whatsoever , and evolution has failed to provide a reasonable and convincing answer to the phenomenon.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/darwin-s-theory-of-evolution-f3/is-the-ability-of-humans-of-speach-explainable-trough-evolution-t68.htmEvolutionist George Gaylord Simpson has admitted that there is little possibility of tracing an evolutionary connection between animals and men as far as language is concerned.
"Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world."
As to whether the gap between animal noises and human language was ever bridged by evolution, Dr. Chomsky states:
"There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking."
In other words there is no comparison at all!
You are changing your question. Meaning and Reason are two different words with 2 possibly related meanings, but they are different. My life has meaning. It has the meaning I find in it.
might be. But it has no ultimate meaning. In one hundred years, you will be dead, and if God does not exist, it makes no difference whatsoever, if you lived as a jerk, or as a valuable and honorable person in society.
Is there a REASON - Not beyond the biological process of creating offspring from my parents.
And what reason should that have ? what difference in the end does it make, if you have offspring, or not ?
This is if it happend SPONTANEOUSLY.
So what else do you propose then ?
You're using a bullshti argument that you obviously don't understand, or have gained nothing in the many attempts to enlighten you on the topic of abiogenesis. That you keep using the same debunked arguments everytime you come here and make a post that I can only interpret as you wanting to make yourself feel better about your beliefs because we've slammed those arguments so hard in the past the thread died.
really ? amazing.... i don't know what there is to slamm. Please explain what other mechanism you suggest, beside chance, and a intelligent designer, as cause of all that exists.
Quantum Mechanics. It does away with the need for a 'first cause' as things can happen with no cause. This is experimentally verified.
thats a non answer.
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/quantum-fluctuations-t65.htm"In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever."
"As Barrow and Tipler comment, "It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble Universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum 'creation ex nihilo,' for the quantum mechanical vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, either Minkowski or de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true 'creation ex nihilo' would be the spontaneous generation of everything--space-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matter--at some time in the past."([1986], p. 441)."
can you help me? on Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:06 pm
