It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Evidence of God: Physics

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:39 AM

What do you guys think?

I heard of this argument before, but never thought about it.

Let the debate begin.


posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 05:55 AM
I did not even bother to watch having seen it before and being astounded at his first statement that "The universe is fine tuned to life"...what an ignorant and presumptuous remark when considering the amount of solar systems and planets known to us.

Our Universe is the opposite of "tuned to life" and this all comes from someone who is not qualified to discuss such matters.

I bet he also believes that fossils were planted by Atheist extremists and the earth is 6,000 years old.

But hey! its the same old scenario "I dont understand it so that must mean GOD created it!"
edit on 19-11-2010 by Crutchley29 because: adding.

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:02 AM
reply to post by Crutchley29

LOL, he is not talking about the number of galaxies, he is talking about the Universal laws which are finely tuned in perfect precision.

It is not my argument, but I understand, at least to some extent what he is talking about

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:04 AM
Utter Bollocks :-)

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:08 AM
That's like the worthless argument "God is real, my evidence is all around you! Look! Everything around you!"....

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:09 AM
reply to post by oozyism

No, it's the same thing, the concept of physics governs the process of life, his limited capacity to think outside the box has given him the view that because of the finely tuned nature of the laws that govern physics; this somehow must be concrete proof of creationism because it's just TOO PERFECT!

I guess that’s why he also disagrees with evolution right? Because it's far too convenient.

God is also the simple answer.

edit on 19-11-2010 by Crutchley29 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:11 AM
Seems to me he is trying to explain everything in terms of numbers and measurement, but what he is forgetting is that numbers are a man made tool which give us a what we believe to be, an understanding of what's going on.

He talks about the universe be finely tuned so it must be creationism, but this is wrong. We finely tune our numbers to fit the arrangement.

In reality, we will never know even 1% of how the universe really works.
edit on 19-11-2010 by LogicalThinker88 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by oozyism

Fine-tuned? Really?

The argument ultimately falls to a tautology: conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist. I think Douglas Adams really summed it up best, though...

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

edit on 19/11/2010 by iterationzero because: additional info added

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:50 AM
Anybody can pick out the information that suits them and twist it to serve their purpose. I can spin some BS to prove that the world is controlled by a cult of mystic lemurs, and it would sound reasonable if it is what you wanted to believe.

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:58 AM

Originally posted by watchitburn
Anybody can pick out the information that suits them and twist it to serve their purpose. I can spin some BS to prove that the world is controlled by a cult of mystic lemurs, and it would sound reasonable if it is what you wanted to believe.

Something like this?

I'm watching it right now.. Enjoy:

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:02 AM
Here is overwhelming, rigorous, mathematical evidence for the existence of transcendental intelligence Whose mathematical nature has been embodied in the sacred geometries of various religions and Whose design has been discovered, among many other things, in superstring theory:

If you can convincingly explain in conventional terms how the sacred geometries analyzed at this website can be equivalent to one another in the sense of having properties that are characterized by the same set of numbers, despite being separated in origin by thousands of miles and years, then I shall be happy to listen. But I am pretty certain that you cannot. One can use words to support any argument one likes. This is why I don't listen to the vacuous debate between creationists and scientists. It is not a matter of one or the other being correct. Both perspectives are far too narrow for me. A higher perspective exists that harmonizes religion and science. The key is mathematics,

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Crutchley29
But hey! its the same old scenario "I dont understand it so that must mean GOD created it!"

Indeed! Richard Dawkins refers to this behaviour as 'The Worship Of Gaps'
"I don't understand, therefore it must be god!"

Creationalists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that GOD, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide. What worries scientists is something else. It is an essential part of the scientific enterprise to admit ignorance, even to exult in ignorance as a challenge to future conquests. As my friend Matt Ridley has written, "Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on". Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do. More generally, as I shall repeat in Chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding.

Admissions of ignorance and temporary mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore unfortunate, to say the least, that the main strategy of creation propagandists is the negative one of seeking out gaps in scientific knowledge and claiming to fill them with 'intelligent design' by default.

- Excerpt from "The God Delusion"
-- By Richard Dawkins



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

Something like this?

Watch all episodes, I watching right now, very interesting:


posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by oozyism

I would but I'm not on my computer ATM Ooze!

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:39 AM
The earth is precisely tuned for life. Which is exactly why life exists here as it does. Now stop for a moment, and think about what was just said. They say that a mere percentage of a point of difference in say, the law of gravity, or the distance from our planet to the sun, if that were not as it is now then life would not be possible. Did you get that part? It would NOT be possible.
Things are as they are because of things being EXACTLY as they should be for a planet like ours. We are at exactly the right position from the sun to have liquid water and not be vaporized. Of course you will mention that ours is a unique position, and the odds of any planet having the same conditions as ours are astronomical. I will be inclined to agree with that argument. It IS astronomical. The thing about THAT is, due to the immense number of galaxies and stars and planets in the entire universe - when you consider ALL of that and the number of possibilities that could exist from such vast numbers, any sane person has to arrive at the conclusion that an arrangement such as ours is BOUND to exist somewhere at some point in time. For every extra sun (star) besides ours that exists, the possibility of another earth-type planet capable of supporting life exists as well. A rough estimate of the number of stars in the observable universe is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. SEVENTY SEXTILLION chances for life. Every single one of these additional suns is an argument in FAVOR of atheism. Is each and every one of these a roll of the dice where god didn't get things just right for life? And why expend an incomprehensible amount of energy in creating so much universe that we have to have special tools just to even be aware of it? Seems a great waste. Of course the next thing coming is the "convenient" cop-out, that god moves in mysterious ways, and that we will never understand "his ways". The funny thing about this is, that the deeper we dig trying to find god, the harder it is to find anything that cannot be explained by natural occurrences. IF there IS an almighty creator, he has done an excellent job of covering his tracks and making it LOOK like everything COULD have come into being on it's own. Why would a god of infinite love hide himself from us...and then threaten to BURN us when we couldn't find him, or refused to believe in the supernatural when all we can experience is the natural? This behavior seems to be the sort reserved for playground bullies in the 12 and under group.
I believe that if there is a creator, he is a great physicist. With great knowledge, would come great understanding and patience. This isn't anything like the murderous, egocentrical god in the bible, obsessed with only one species in the entire universe and prone to fits of homicidal rage when defied.
You believe because you want to believe, because it gives you a false hope in something that you think you have to believe in.

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:51 AM
reply to post by micpsi

This is even more proof that life EVOLVED from the same materials, from the same source! This isn't supernatural proof of ANYTHING except that creationists will go to whatever extremes necessary to make their position believable. This is like saying that it must be god that made me look like my great great grandfather. Nevermind genetics - throw the DNA out the window. When evolution "found" a pattern that worked - it ran with it. You can see the fibonacci sequence in life all over the planet. Proof of supernatural creation would be if we were composed of atoms of materials found nowhere else on the planet OR the universe. Proof would be evident if our planet were in the armpit of the sun and still enjoyed summers and winters - or even yet out beyond the reaches of Pluto - but we know, we know that if anything were different we would NOT be here which has absolutely NO indication of anything even remotely supernatural.

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by LogicalThinker88

"We finely tune our numbers to fit the arrangement."

Wow, that was a great post. Well said.

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:35 AM
To me the study of physics is futile to some extent, if your goal is to understand the whole universe(s).

It's a series of never ending curtains as far as I can tell, we figure one thing out only to reveal 10 more mysteries and I don't see that ever ending.

posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by oozyism

20 seconds in and he's already wrong?

1: We don't know if a universe can exist that is not habitable.
2: We don't know if a universe can exist that doesn't have the exact same laws of physics as us.
3: The 'rules of the universe' actually contain things that are entirely neutral to life. A good example of this is the weak force. We exist and would continue to do so irrespective of the existence of the weak force or its strength (unless cranked up to a ridiculously infeasible level)
4: We have no way of determining the likelihood of uniformity arising naturally vs artificially imposed uniformity.

Uniformity in the laws of nature doesn't mean that this uniformity is imposed.

edit to add:

This is also a ridiculous statement as 'fine tuned for life' doesn't cover the fact that we've found conclusive proof of life on a single planet in the observed universe. We don't have evidence of life arising on any other planet in the solar system, and it can hardly survive in certain parts of the Earth.

The universe is actually quite averse to life. It would be a lot easier for life to exist if space were oxygen-rich and well heated.
I've heard this argument 1000 times before and 1000 times it falls flat on its face.
edit on 19/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 20 2010 @ 07:09 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Yes. Agreed. It is very hostile to life. But the sheer volume of stars, and their corresponding number of planets, and yet to quote you - "We don't have evidence of life arising on any other planet in the solar system", how can that be? Unless earth is unique and 'created' by some sort of intelligence.

How many stars are we talking about?

"So an average galaxy contains between 1011 and 1012 stars. In other words, galaxies, on average have between 100 billion and 1 trillion numbers of stars.

Now, how many galaxies are there? Astronomers estimate that there are approximately 100 billion to 1 trillion galaxies in the Universe. So if you multiply those two numbers together, you get between 1022 and 1024 stars in the Universe. How many stars? There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe. That’s a large number of stars."


Personally, I believe there has to be other life out there. But it has not proven - yet.

Either way it does not prove the rest of the enitre speech incorrect. Judging a video by the first 20 seconds does not seem like sound science at all.

Was Earth created or formed from randomness?

Let's see, the distance of the earth to the sun, the Earth's tilt which varies between 22.2 and 24.5 degrees, the Earth's magnetic field, etc., etc. to almost infinity, would give you 10 to the 11h power or more of acts of randomness or a sign of an intelligent Creator.

Hmmm...which makes more sense?

To think over a million different things just fell in line in order for life to form and "EVOLVE" to our level of being is beyond ludicrous. Quite frankly, it defies all scientific 'observable' reasoning.

And yes, I know, just because we haven't figured it all out yet doesn't mean we won't - I get that point. But try using common sense sometimes and trust what you are observing. Sometimes the gap, or the only thing possible, is the correct answer.

(Please don't respond with the 'gap' thing - it's beyond old - think of something new - please)

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in