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 proving there is a God? WHAT?!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Okay, so recently in a church service, our pastor decided to intrigue the congregation with a little bit of a science lesson he had looked into. There was a rather large explanation behind it, explaining how these numbers were valid in today's world, and how they were brought about, but when put in simpler terms, it made much sense. The end result was this: The probability for life to exist in it's current form, with earth, its position in the Universe, and just the overall state of everything, to come from something completely random, is smaller than the Universal probability of anything to happen (Dembski's estimate).

I am not quite sure how to word this, as it is probably confusing, but here, I will give you a few excerpts and links to show you what I am talking about:

Dembski's original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10150, derived as the inverse of the product of the following approximate quantities:[8] * 1080, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe. * 1045, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time). * 1025, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds. Thus, 10150 = 1080 × 1045 × 1025. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. Dembski has recently (as of 2005) refined his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities:[9] * An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history. This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10120 elementary logic operations on a register of 1090 bits[10][11] * The (variable) rank complexity of the event under consideration.[12] If the latter quantity equals 10150, then the overall universal probability bound corresponds to the original value.

Wikiepdia link

Also, here is a website that outlines (yes, it is a christian-science website) what exactly I am trying to say:

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

Link to full article

I'm sorry if this is confusing, but I'll try to sum it up in a few words: The scientist William Dembski(yes, a "Christian" one too) came up with a theory, stating the number of the probability of anything to occur in the Universe, by pure chance. However, the amount of chance it took to create a single human being in the universe was way more than it becoming a "probability" thus supporting the theory of intelligent design.

So what do you guys think? Yes, there are some bias variables here, such as the scientist is a Christian, but for you proof loving, logic endorsing science people out there (I do love science and logic myself), science is science, and this man is no exception. However, I know this doesn't claim that the "Christian" God is the "true" God, however, it does support the theory that the universe and all it contains could not just of happened by chance.
I myself believe that God, Christianity and Science do go hand in hand, but of course, that's not what most people see it as.
Discuss.
Peace.


Please note: Due to my lack of formatting, these numbers should be exponential, as in, the 1 chance in 10282 should actually be 10 to the power of 282 along with all other 10's followed by other numbers. Sorry for this.

[edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country]




posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
the problem with this argument is that even on mars there is evidence of life, microbes, that means there is 1 out of nine chance of life even n our solar system let alone others , every star you see is a solar system with its own chance for life..

How it was created is up for conjecture but, i doubt it was a god of any sort .. even the untouched islands have proved that evolution changes things to fit there environment drastically, and actual microbes on mars proves the odds are far higher that in the trillions.. and that's just what we very unexplored humans know.

Religion keeps changing its story to fit reality.. reality is there is life all over and fr them to let there gods take credit for it is quite egotistical.



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by E-ville
 


You make good points, but I don't see how there being microbes on mars, (and no one is going to deny that) disproves the theory of intelligent creation. Yes, there is adaptation, but I'm not about to say anything about evolution because to tell you the truth, I am rather uneducated in the subject, so I stand on the fence. However, I believe that the theory of intelligent creation is much more probable and logical than by chance. I think we as humans are to afraid to submit ourselves to someone higher than ourselves. That's why we have such a problem with governing bodies. We are selfish. We think we are our own God.

[edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


But to some, we are our own GOD. Proof that life was created by devine intervention will never be definative...there are more variables than there are number sets to exponentially show such an occurence. Not to mention, the current science that would be used to show such an occurence could ever be plausable, is debunked IMHO.

One point to make on this: What is dark-matter?

The unified answer on this load will enevitable answer any reason for man to create the gaps as well as the filling. But the one who questions the validity of science is always seen as a heratic, thus, making thier views invalid within the community regardless of how solidified they are in thier logic.

As the old saying goes "To each his own". The relation of GOD to creation might one day be discovered, but it will not be determined by man as we have all the spiffy books to tell us how to infer our wired consiousness onto others.

But I am not a religious person, just one who has faith in my belief of my relation to GOD. I believe that once you get past the word "Religion" the answer will hit you right in the face as it did with me. I also believe that I am just some redneck in the backwoods of Tennessee...take my opinions as you will



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


If the universe or existence is infinite, then that probability in my opinion, is garbage. With the limited knowledge of the Universe so far, I do not think we "humans" can start declaring whether or not infinite beings exist.

However, since I do believe in infinite possibilities, I really have no objections to this endeavor. Keep at it.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I think that if I worked hard enough I could come up with science to back up much of anything I want to be true.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by E-ville
 


However, I believe that the theory of intelligent creation is much more probable and logical than by chance. I think we as humans are to afraid to submit ourselves to someone higher than ourselves. That's why we have such a problem with governing bodies. We are selfish. We think we are our own God.

[edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 113131p://555 by For(Home)Country]


I don't see what would make an intelligent creator more logical than a chance happening. We must remember that we started to think of the science behind it because we started to think that an intelligent creation is less probable and logical.

Also, I think that history has shown that we are more afraid to NOT submit to a higher being. Ask a turned gnostic or atheist and they will tell you that it is actually quite hard not having faith to fall back on.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreyFoxSolidI don't see what would make an intelligent creator more logical than a chance happening. We must remember that we started to think of the science behind it because we started to think that an intelligent creation is less probable and logical.


I'm not religious, but intelligent design is more logical simply because it makes much more sense that consciousness created matter, rather than the other way around. I just find it absolutely ridiculously that complex organisms capable of pondering its own mortality can be produced from non-conscious evolution of matter.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Sroek]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Well thank you for all the posts so far! It's nice to see all the different views everyone has. It's understanding that you need to know all sides of the argument before you can make a rational decision that makes humans progress, in my opinion anyways.
Anyways, thanks again to all who have posted!



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 03:11 AM
link   
According to our science no human can survive on mars with out technology. That means with out unnatural help.

If you go to mars and bring water and try to plant a forest and grass under its sky it will all die out.

Mars don't have the ability to make or preserve life like earth dose. Because of its location compared to the sun.

So in other words earth is a special place compared to any other planet. The question is! Is earth and its moon put here by chance ?

So far we only have ideas on where our moon comes from. But no real proof.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Your pastor basicly gave one big "If things were different, things would be different" argument and threw in some bogus statistical odds for it to happen. Using the same logic, there is about a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of enough molecules coming together to form the Sahara Desert, and yet there it stands.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I personally believe we were created, that being said, I have heard creationists make really comprehensive arguements for evolution, but on the same token I have heard evolutionary scientists completely debunk the theory of evolution scientificly. I believe in God, but I don't pretend to understand the way we were made.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
The argument put forth in the OP is known as the anthropic principle, and it's flawed. The main reason is that it assumes life as we know it is the only form possible, and discounts that were things cosmically different, we ourselves might exist, but in a different form.

I don't like it when religious people try to twist scientific knowledge to their means, it just shows how uneducated they are on the subjects. If reading a couple of chapters in an ID book was all it took to scientifically prove the existence of god, it would have been done long ago.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
well i wonder if he can add god to his equation, what are the odds that another being gains profound power and chooses to create human life on earth. The probability of there being a God i think highly outweighs that of intelligent life on one little planet.

Besides i dont know why this guy thinks he knows how the universe works, i dont know why anyone thinks they know how it works, all theyve seen is a tiny drop in the ocean, all you can do is speculate, thats why i hate people who think they know it all and say "well the universe is this way and that way".



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
I read a book by Leonard Suskind (you may remember him as the theoretical physicists who disproved Stephen Hawkins' initial theories on black holes) called "The Cosmic Landscape" and he reluctantly makes the argument for God.

The The Anthropic Principle has been a conclusion many physicists hate because they see it as giving in. Suskind says, with emerging theories on multiverses and the revelations of dark matter and dark energy, it seems life itself is very unlikely in this harsh universe. It seems as though something has made it possible and continues to make it possible for life to exist.

How life began is and will probably always remain a mystery. But lets not be confused, evolution is not something to be on the fence about. It is an obvious truth, that reaffirms itself over and over again, despite theology's hatred for it. Unlike religion, evolution requires little faith to believe it. Just look into the eyes of a lower mammal, see if you don't find something familiar.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sroek

I'm not religious, but intelligent design is more logical simply because it makes much more sense that consciousness created matter, rather than the other way around. I just find it absolutely ridiculously that complex organisms capable of pondering its own mortality can be produced from non-conscious evolution of matter.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Sroek]


I really don't see a reason why. It might be hard to look around and wonder where everything around us came from, but simply because it is incomprehensible, for the most part, does not make it more possible that a consciousness created everything. This view is very romantic, sure, but it does not make it more logical.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Also, in regards to - "I just find it absolutely ridiculously that complex organisms capable of pondering its own mortality can be produced from non-conscious evolution of matter. "

As far as we know we are the only species that does this. This is not to imply that others don't. Maybe pondering your own mortality is something that can be done with more advanced brains? If this were the deciding factor in creationism being true, would it be safe to say that all creatures could do this? When is the last time an animal tried to alert us that it was thinking so philosophically?

Our brains are quite mechanical.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is something...greater... out there. I don't think it is some figurehead creator, though.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Am I the only person with a calulator? 1080 × 1045 × 1025 = 1156815000. What is this math-wiz talking about? God IS the universe. The God particle is ALL the particles. This isn't rocket science. Now, that we've cleared the air. How do you all propose we SAVE THE PLANET FROM HUMAN POLLUTION, OVERPOPULATION, AND DEGRADATION OF HABITAT?

Please, let's not revert. We've made such progress as a species. Go to college. Learn the truth. And, stop whining about who/what/where/why/when God is... He IS everything.

"The bell curve seems to be accurate." - the new ATS motto



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeteLee
Am I the only person with a calulator? 1080 × 1045 × 1025 = 1156815000. What is this math-wiz talking about?


No, as a later post pointed out, those values were typos for exponents. It would have been better to have just used the ^ symbol though!

10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25

Cheers.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Lets see, if human DNA has on average 3 billion base pairs meaning 4 AT-CG links per pair. And you typed that in to a file on a computer and each line equals 4 bytes. Then a single human cell would contain roughly 514 gigabytes of data. Then that times the 70-75 odd trillion cells in your body. Thats not counting mDNA or the memory capacity of the brain.

and all that just happened because amino acids came together in a puddle a few billion years ago. Oh yeah, we can't yet even make a living cell out of pre-existing parts, much less one from scratch. But it just happened. Im sorry I have a hard time with evolution.

Here is evolution: 2+?+?*7+4+?+?+?+time=you

I look up transitional fossils and all I can find is the horse, whale, and humans.

The horse shows a little horse becoming a big horse, the whale story is a little to far fetched (devout Christians would love to have that kind of faith) and the hominids fossils look like # and are mostly reconstructed. Did Lucy fall out of a big ass tree when she died? That monkey is over half reconstructed. But we can get thousands of sweet looking T-Rex skeletons? And they cant even make up their minds as to which ones "we descended from" Was it Lucy? Homo habilus? Homo Ergaster? Homo Erectus? The Spagetti Monster?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join