It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God, WSJ

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
I always appreciate your opinion Skeptic, when you disagree you do so with class and back it up with facts/statistics.

You have changed my mind in other threads, thank you.

I hope all any of us want is to deny ignorance.

I just found this being in WSJ the interesting point really. Its nothing new to those who research this stuff. Some of the quotes are from 2006 or so.

Are they known for other non main stream articles such as this?

I am not a follower of theirs.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
science makes the case for God. response DUH.

IF you use science how can you say that something just happens without some being without some force behind it. without thought come on.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: KnightLight

All we know is that there was a beginning to the current space/time model of physics, called the Big Bang. That's it.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
As a scientist, I must point out that the size of the data set does not mean small probability events are "destined" to happen.


No, the saying, given a large enough space and enough chances, any probability greater than 0% will happen is 100% true. Otherwise the probability would be 0%. Though that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe is a large enough data set with enough chances (which is what I think you are getting at), but the size and age of it certainly do help the odds.

One more thing. In math, data sets can be infinite.


That's incorrect and misleading. Nor does low probability mean that there is a God.

The entire premise of arguing philosophical beliefs based on a twisted and false application of statistical probabilities, for most of which we have insufficient data to even estimate, is dumb.


Yes, yes it is. Which was my whole point.
edit on 6-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   


It's pathetic click-bait written by a non-scientist religious pundit with an agenda.



Well I am so glad we cleared that up, before I wasted my life to read the article, thanks SO.


I spend a lot of my time thinking, rather than debating "God's existence" why don't we just try getting on with it, stop wondering, after all what benefit does the existence of God hold for us?

What does it matter?

Serious question

If he does exist, he isn't actively engaging us (unless you think he is, but that's a whole other thread and subjective at best).

If he doesn't, many people are wasting their time factoring a delusion into their universal view and a significant number allow it to sway their decision making.

Order is born from chaos not God, in my opinion



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I've always thought it's possible that life exists everywhere and life on Earth is just one of many ways life can start and evolve. I'm definitely no expert in this field and this is strictly my opinion, but why does life have to start exactly like it did here on Earth?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: ColeYounger


I don't understand these atheists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of God. Are they that weak and insecure?

Maybe for these religious people who foam at the mouth, and get offended at the very mention of no-god. Are they that weak and insecure?



I will readily admit that there's no shortage of judgemental, hypocritical phonies who call themselves Christians.
BUT...the atheists are the ones who claim superior logic, reasoning and intelligence. Why can't they simply accept
the idea that someone may believe in a creator? Why are they so offended? Why do they get so worked up?
They rant and rave about religious people being intolerant, yet they absolutely freak out if someone believes in something
different than they do. It's hilarious!

We could discuss the humorous and vile attributes of both sides all day long, and get nowhere. Or we can agree that both sides have extremists to varying degrees, and learn to stop painting each other with such a broad brush. Some of my favorite members here are Xtian. Yet I have respect for them, and their opinion. There's a reason for that. They've earned it.
edit on 1/6/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Okay... Maybe I am just dense so can someone explain how the increase or decrease in the amount of planets which we think may sustain life in the galaxy influences the probability of an intelligent designer?


Yeah, if this designer was really all that intelligent, it could probably figure out a way for things to live even without the conditions being "perfect." I've never understood the compulsion of people to create for themselves a supernatural superbeing and then place a lot of assumed limitations on it. If you're going to have a God who can do pretty much anything, why not have it be able to create life that can thrive in the core of a sun or black hole, or in a complete sunless void? Or isn't God up to it?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

You have an excellent point. I have never even thought of it that way before. I guess that is because as you said even those who promote an all powerful being have pretty much agreed to place limits on it so those limits were just assumed.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: KnightLight

All we know is that there was a beginning to the current space/time model of physics, called the Big Bang. That's it.


that's what I said silly.

Maybe the last line of my post didn't get through.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

wait if its intelligent design there is a reason why you don't live
on the sun. I mean would you say to an architect why didn't you design this building with wings on it??

why have limits architect?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I have no issues with a creator force that started the universe and in fact (based on nothing other than personal feeling) Im almost certain there is one.
What I have an issue with is people claiming to understand his mind/thoughts/designs/wants, to sincerely believe the creator of the universe came to earth a few thousand years ago and told some nomadic tribe how they should live that included mass genocide, rape, theft and lying goes completely against what I think the Universe (my name for God) is all about.
But then again I dont have a book of propaganda backing me up so what would I know



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

The fine-tuning argument amounts to saying that if the universe was any different, the universe would be different. It's a tautological trap of the intellect.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
wait if its intelligent design there is a reason why you don't live on the sun. I mean would you say to an architect why didn't you design this building with wings on it??
why have limits architect?

Not the same thing. A regular old human architect is limited by gravity and mass and the strength of materials. This proposed super duper creator and manipulator God, on the other hand, could change any of those things on a whim. I'm not God, but even I can imagine creatures living in the broiling atomic heat of a sun, composed of a constantly recycling matrix of hydrogen and helium, absorbing energy, "feeling" and transmitting information back and forth via matrix resonances and subatomic spins.

Why is your God so weak and limited?

edit on 6-1-2015 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I'm not God, but even I can imagine creatures living in the broiling atomic heat of a sun, composed of a constantly recycling matrix of hydrogen and helium, absorbing energy, "feeling" and transmitting information back and forth via matrix resonances and subatomic spins.

Why is your God so weak and limited?


Who is to say that's not happening right now? The way you just described it sounded pretty cool anyway.

Would you then call that sun the "Sun of God?"

hehe..

But then what if all information is connected and never being destroyed.. Then I'd call the entire universe, including anything unseen "God"
edit on 6-1-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Jamie1

I think it is a dumb premise as well but I am trying to figure out how those that think it makes sense are rationalizing the argument.

Usually I can at least understand how someone came to their conclusion even if I disagree with them but not in this case.


I understand the argument. I think I read it in a Hawking book. The physical parameters, like laws of physics and gravity and chemistry are so unlikely to be in the exact proportions to allow for the universe to exist, it must mean there is a God. I think Hawing even entertained this theory.

Then, if my memory is right about the Hawking book, he concluded that it's a false premise based on quantum physics. There are literally infinite universes, every reality possible, coexisting, and that we are perceiving this one we're in now because it's the permutation that we're in.

Either way, none of it proves or disproves a God or no God. Scientifically God is impossible to prove. Academically God is impossible to disprove. A lot of mental masturbation on both sides.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
I don't understand these atheists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of God. Are they that weak and insecure?


I don't understand these theists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of evolution or the fact that there is zero objective evidence for god. Are they that weak and insecure?

The atheists are defending valid science. The theists are the ones using fallacies to support their case and using slander and libel against evolution as if they have a point.

Honestly, there's a reason you don't go to business insider or Wall street journal for science. I wouldn't go to Science insider for stock advice. The article was trash.



BUT...the atheists are the ones who claim superior logic, reasoning and intelligence. Why can't they simply accept
the idea that someone may believe in a creator? Why are they so offended?


Who is ranting and raving or claiming superior intelligence? I hate to tell you this, but religious folk do the same exact thing, except they argue much more irrationally (based on the posts in this section). It's not even just atheists either. Any contributing member of society should be annoyed when folks spread ignorance, and it's not just religious folk or atheists.

The fact of the matter is that there is no objective evidence for god. People only get offended when religious folks claim their faith is fact or that fact (like evolution) is faith. They are the ones that constantly attack science and lobby for laws being passed that support their faith. People SHOULD be offended when folks try to turn science into a joke, despite it completely reforming our society. People SHOULD be offended when science is denied in favor of ancient myths. People SHOULD be offended when ignorance is spread around as if it is true. Anybody who is not offended by those things rubs me suspicious.
edit on 6-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Jamie1
As a scientist, I must point out that the size of the data set does not mean small probability events are "destined" to happen.


No, the saying, given a large enough space and enough chances, any probability greater than 0% will happen is 100% true. Otherwise the probability would be 0%. Though that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe is a large enough data set with enough chances (which is what I think you are getting at), but the size and age of it certainly do help the odds.

One more thing. In math, data sets can be infinite.


That's incorrect and misleading. Nor does low probability mean that there is a God.

The entire premise of arguing philosophical beliefs based on a twisted and false application of statistical probabilities, for most of which we have insufficient data to even estimate, is dumb.


Yes, yes it is. Which was my whole point.


This is where math and philosophy merge. With infinite time and space, every permutation has a probability of 100%.

At some point our capacity to get our heads around any of this using the models we know reaches a limit. We have no context for what we don't know or have experienced.

That said, our belief and calculation of the probabilities at time t = 0 does not mean they're accurate. If we believe that event 1 has probability of p > 0, and we collect data for 10 trillion years and event 1 hasn't happened, we will still don't know if our original assumption were correct or not.

Kind of the paradox of infinity and where are models are pushed to the limit.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: KnightLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Anyone who tells me it's more likely it's god and not random, and anyone who says it's more likely random and not god isn't using statistics. One may feel more likely to you, but it's based on suppositions.


It's not about statistics, it's about objective evidence. There is absolutely none for god, so it isn't about something just feeling more likely. It IS more likely, based on the evidence. Now that doesn't mean god is wrong, of course, but the outlook isn't looking so good considering 150 years of science and not a single objective piece of evidence to support any god or any creation event.
edit on 6-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Great, another "low probability of life developing correlates to intelligent design" threads... There are so many flaws in that reasoning it isn't even funny.

By the way, your OP is wrong, science isn't saying that design is inevitable. SOME scientists are saying that it is possible. There is a difference there. There is no presented evidence in the OP or from those scientists though to say that they are correct. So their opinions are just that, opinions. And you (well wsj) are using an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting them.

By the way, Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang" as a derisive comment about it because he didn't believe the theory was true.

John Lennox is a Christian apologist. It isn't surprising that he'd argue in favor of design.


Your argument is weak, the data is strong. Going from a 1 with 24 zeros down to a few thousand places in the universe where conditions are right for life doesn't leave much room for Dawinism to perform it's hokus pokus. The downward curve is very dramatic as more and more of the complex precise combinations of prerequisites required to have a life sustaining planet become known.


First off, learn scientific notation. It is 1 * 10 ^24 or 1 e 24 not 1 with 24 zeros (this just shows how unscientific this article is for using such stupid notation). Second off, the amount of places that can sustain life hasn't been reduced to a few thousand places in the universe. That wasn't even said in the article, you just made that number up in your head. We have no idea what the exact conditions are for life, not to mention the exact number of planets or life habitable locations in the universe. In fact the number of known planets that can support life has increased, not decreased. You apparently haven't been staying up to date with science, namely astronomy.

Using probability to prove god is ridiculous since if the odds aren't 0%, then it WILL happen given a large enough space and large enough timespan. Heck, it can even happen more than once. Which means that according to probability there could totally be another earth somewhere out in the universe with humans on it having this same conversation. The universe is SO vast that even the smallest probabilities are destined to happen at some point.


If you use probability that even a tiny portion of a percentage there could be God, then some point there will be God. Once there is God by probability, God's all powerfulness means God is there forever, eradicates all past, and becomes without beginning or end and there can never be another as God would not allow it.
Yes probability proves God, thanks for pointing that out.

This also puts the full weight of proof to be provided by the atheist, showing that beyond doubt there is zero probability of God. If this is not accomplished then probability proves there will given enough time be God, and after that well, God forever and ever.
edit on 6-1-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join