Evidence of God in physics , MIND BOGGLING , page 8

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

The thing with science is, if you go too far in your cold analysis, all meaning in the universe just becomes a jumble of numbers and chemical formulas. Are you trying to kill all meaning in the universe? Does it make you feel better to think that all of this was just random and there is no purpose to existing? Does that warm your heart?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

The thing with science is, if you go too far in your cold analysis, all meaning in the universe just becomes a jumble of numbers and chemical formulas.

That's not the case. When you study enough, you see more of the world's beauty and complexity. Like insects see in UV, you feel like you are wearing magic glasses invisible to everyone else. You see cause and effect and symmetry and depth that aren't accessible to others. The world opens up to you.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

I'm assuming you have not read the entire thread. I don't support the claims in the video. I'm merely pointing out the discrepancies in peoples understanding of the the theory behind the "finely tuned universe" concept. AND that if the theory is valid, it is by no means "proof" of intelligent design!!

Logic dictates that all possible alternative explanations COULD be the answer.

Counter arguments to the "divine creator" conclusion include (as I stated before)

~ One hypothesis is that the Universe may have been designed by extra-universal aliens. Some believe this would solve the problem of how a designer or design team capable of fine-tuning the Universe could come to exist. Cosmologist Alan Guth believes humans will in time be able to generate new universes. By implication previous intelligent entities may have generated our Universe

This one is my personal favorite...

~ "modern cosmology indicates that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."

~ The Simulation hypothesis promoted by Nick Bostrom and others suggests that our Universe may be a computer simulation by aliens.

~ The Biocosm hypothesis and the Meduso-anthropic principle both suggest that natural selection has made the universe biophilic. The Universe enables intelligence because intelligent entities later create new biophilic universes. This is different from the suggestion above that aliens from a universe that is less-finely tuned than ours made our Universe finely tuned.

~ The Designer Universe theory of John Gribbin suggests that the Universe could have been made deliberately by a member or members of a technologically advanced civilization in another part of the Multiverse, and that this advanced civilization may have been responsible for causing the Big Bang.

Same source:

The constants mentioned above in my previous post are undeniable fact. Yes, it's true that if certain of these constants were changed, the Universe would be an entirely different place where even the formation of atoms would not be possible.

My point is that even if we work from the premise that the Universe IS finely tuned, it doesn't actually provide irrefutable proof of God.

reply to post by Blarneystoner

---

My point is that even if we work from the premise that the Universe IS finely tuned, it doesn't actually provide irrefutable proof of God.

So you need to have absolutely irrefutable evidence of a god laid on a table in front of you, and your nose rubbed in it for half an hour, before you begin to reconsider your opinion?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

The thing with science is, if you go too far in your cold analysis, all meaning in the universe just becomes a jumble of numbers and chemical formulas. Are you trying to kill all meaning in the universe? Does it make you feel better to think that all of this was just random and there is no purpose to existing? Does that warm your heart?

Do you know what science is?
Cold analysis or dealing with facts, or EVIDENCE is really all there is, and if one can find god with cold analysis, so be it. I just hope it ain't the dude in the Old Testament.
What other kind of analysis is there but cold? Any other analysis would just be mythology would it not, as it would just be made up fantasy and tales spun from unicorn shavings?

What is meaning in the Universe? Does it need to have meaning for it to exist? Does it need to have meaning for the sake of humans?
NO!
Tell me why I am wrong.
How does one kill something that may not be? (Are you trying to kill all meaning in the universe? Quoted from above)

All of it could very well be random with no purpose, have you got any cold hard evidence to present your side of the truth? Most explosions are completely random, and most Big Bang events are giant explosions. (I believe there are more Universes out there).

I really do hope there is more to life than cold reality, but most people's facts are hearsay from a book written by superstitious people 1000's of years ago.


Do you believe god wrote (or dictated) the bible?

I am reading this right now, I dare you to. :
Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

---

Man... you need to back the eff off. I've already stated my personal beliefs... But we're not talking about Faith are we?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Toadmund

---

Do you know what science is?
Cold analysis or dealing with facts, or EVIDENCE is really all there is, and if one can find god with cold analysis, so be it. I just hope it ain't the dude in the Old Testament.

I am very familiar with science. However, you seem to be missing one small fact: if our science isn't good enough to see what's there, does that mean it isn't there? Or does that mean we must be patient until we have the necessary means to ascertain that knowledge?

I don't see anyone waiting patiently for the answer...do you? Does that make them right, or does that make them impatient and thus uninformed?

reply to post by Toadmund

---

Science can only tell us what we know, not what we don't.

Indeed.

Things like god, weather the universe has a purpose, science has not ruled that out. You have a point, but there is also no evidence of those things.

Doesn't mean they don't exist. Just means we're not smart enough to see it yet. All of your arguments beg the assumption that the technology we have today is the best technology there will ever be, or that this is as smart as we'll ever be. Wait until the chickens have hatched, okay? As of this moment, we are quite possibly one of the most idiotic species on this planet. How can we understand what's outside our world, when we keep misunderstanding that which is right next to us?

We are still children. Give it time before suddenly deciding, "Oh, well, we have enough data to conclude blah blah blah." Don't jump the gun.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

WELL TOO BAD!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Toadmund

---

Science can only tell us what we know, not what we don't.

Indeed.

Things like god, weather the universe has a purpose, science has not ruled that out. You have a point, but there is also no evidence of those things.

Doesn't mean they don't exist. Just means we're not smart enough to see it yet

You are repeating what your interlocutor said, however the important point is that it doesn't make much sense talking about things without necessity or indication that they may exist. There can be a frozen pre-historical animal buries under my house. Your neighbor may well be a space alien in disguise. Ahmadinejad can be an agent of Mossad. It's a waste of time to discuss the endless possibilities, which are frankly very improbable.

All of your arguments beg the assumption that the technology we have today is the best technology there will ever be, or that this is as smart as we'll ever be.

I beg to differ, I think you misinterpreted your interlocutor.

reply to post by buddhasystem

---

My point here is simple: we don't know enough to say "yes" or "no". Yet we THINK we do, and that's where the mistake is. We act as though we know enough now to say almost anything as an absolute, and that's not realistic. Let's give it a few hundred years, shall we? It's not like we've had 10 trillion years devoted to the study of these matters. In fact, a large percentage of the time we've spent on the matter has been wasted on dogma. It's foolish to think we're anywhere close to a definite answer at this point in time.

So let's not act like it, lest we begin to believe our own arrogance. I'd rather admit I have no idea than live with the wrong idea.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

---

My point here is simple: we don't know enough to say "yes" or "no". Yet we THINK we do, and that's where the mistake is. We act as though we know enough now to say almost anything as an absolute, and that's not realistic.

And my point is even simpler - you are making things up. Nobody is saying "this" or "that" with 100% certainty, at least as far as science is concerned. It's just in cases where there is zero factual base, we tend to avoid wasting time on these things. As I said, there may be an ancient creature buried deep underground in my village. Feel free to discuss the color of its scales, I have more important things to do.

reply to post by buddhasystem

---

And my point is even simpler - you are making things up.

You certainly have a way of constructively criticizing without the constructive aspect. And in this case, without the justified aspect, either.

Nobody is saying "this" or "that" with 100% certainty, at least as far as science is concerned.

In short, try searching the ATS archives for the number of times opinions were used as an absolute, or as fact. When you have done that, THEN you can disrespect me. Sound fair?

I'm trying to show you how to play nicely. Is it working?

As I said, there may be an ancient creature buried deep underground in my village. Feel free to discuss the color of its scales, I have more important things to do.

Your tone implies vast reluctance to participate in this thread, which leaves me curious as to whether you're here to be rude, or just here to rip down any semblance of intelligent polite discussion - aka being rude. You seem to have a certain grudge against any type of speculation, which leaves this thread mud-bogged since speculation is the only source of momentum available for the topic.

Pokemon discovered in Venezuela
  Posted 14 days ago with 47 member flags

89-Year-Old Man Develops Bladeless Bird-Friendly Wind Turbine
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags

Amazing snowflake images that you have never seen before.
  Posted 14 days ago with 44 member flags

Energy Solutions THEY don\'t want you to know about
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags

High speed video reveals the bizarre physics of an ordinary water droplet
  Posted 4 days ago with 32 member flags

Does this video show a working self propelled magnetic engine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags

Viruses: alive or not?
  Posted 11 days ago with 30 member flags

NASA reveals secrets it has hidden on the Curiosity rover.
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: