scientific reasons for believing in god?

Original post by mangala

the only reason i can think of for the existence is god is that aguero stays playin for city, why else would he stay if god wasnt working his magic? science cant disprove that

Was gonna dismiss you as a flame baiter but now I c u r educated.

Reply 702

Original post by Good bloke

I presume you mean "minuscule", but in any event they did not form "as is". They formed and then developed into the current state.

My version is correct as well: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule

And by "as is", I mean with the physical parameters (forces, gravity variables) that allow the Universe to exist in a significant way ( allowing the development order and life ). This is called the "goldilock zone".

Reply 703

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

My version is correct as well: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule

hehe As your link says, only through mistaken usage.

The probability of Earth being in the so-called Goldilocks Zone is 1, since life has formed here. There are almost certainly billions of exoplanets in their solar system's equivalent zone, and are consequently candidates for life hosts.

Reply 704

chemting

16

Original post by itsonlybeth

I think that when you look at how complex even the smallest of organisms, for me it's impossible not to believe in a creator. Look at the normal body cell, all those tiny components that function perfectly to keep organisms alive, I feel that that is enough evidence for me to believe in a God who designed and created the universe.

A complex organism needs a complex creator?

Who designed and created god - the complex creator?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 705

Original post by Good bloke

The probability of Earth being in the so-called Goldilocks Zone is 1, since life has formed here. There are almost certainly billions of exoplanets in their solar system's equivalent zone, and are consequently candidates for life hosts.

I'm not talking about planetary goldilock zone, but Universal goldilock zone. As Michio Kaku said:

"It turns out that the fundamental parameters of the universe appear to be perfectly "fine-tuned." For example, if the nuclear force were any stronger, the sun would have simply burned out billions of years ago, and if it were any weaker the sun wouldn't have ignited to begin with. The Nuclear Force is tuned Just Right. Similarly, if gravity were any stronger, the Universe would have most likely collapsed in on itself in a big crunch; and if it were any weaker, everything would have simply frozen over in a big freeze. The Gravitational Force is Just Right."

Reply 706

itsonlybeth

Original post by Hydeman

@Peroxidation is a physicist, too. :smile:

Would you say that you're a deist, then? :holmes:

something like that maybe

Reply 707

chemting

16

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

I'm not talking about planetary goldilock zone, but Universal goldilock zone. As Michio Kaku said:

"It turns out that the fundamental parameters of the universe appear to be perfectly "fine-tuned." For example, if the nuclear force were any stronger, the sun would have simply burned out billions of years ago, and if it were any weaker the sun wouldn't have ignited to begin with. The Nuclear Force is tuned Just Right. Similarly, if gravity were any stronger, the Universe would have most likely collapsed in on itself in a big crunch; and if it were any weaker, everything would have simply frozen over in a big freeze. The Gravitational Force is Just Right."

As Dr Arif Ahmed has mentioned... if you are going to justify fine tuning claims - you need to provide evidence for this. You can't justify this claim as you need a probability distribution between all the constants and likeliness/unlikeliness of forming life as we know it... and that is almost impossible as we only have one Universe with one set of constants to play with - therefore the fine-tuning can't really be justified.

Reply 708

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

I'm not talking about planetary goldilock zone, but Universal goldilock zone. As Michio Kaku said:

"It turns out that the fundamental parameters of the universe appear to be perfectly "fine-tuned." For example, if the nuclear force were any stronger, the sun would have simply burned out billions of years ago, and if it were any weaker the sun wouldn't have ignited to begin with. The Nuclear Force is tuned Just Right. Similarly, if gravity were any stronger, the Universe would have most likely collapsed in on itself in a big crunch; and if it were any weaker, everything would have simply frozen over in a big freeze. The Gravitational Force is Just Right."

Ah! Yes, argument by lack of imagination.

We would not be here talking about it if the parameters were wrong. And maybe in a parallel universe the constants are wrong and there is either no life or a different kind of life. There is no fundamental necessity for life to be carbon-based, for instance, if the constraints were different.

Anyway, life is adapted to this universe through evolution of primitive chemicals and cells; the universe is not adapted to support life.

In fact the earliest life would not be able to survive on Earth now, as Earth has been bio-formed over the billions of years since then - through the introduction of large amounts of oxygen, for instance. As the environment changed, so only well-adapted life forms have been able to survive.

Reply 709

itsonlybeth

Original post by chemting

A complex organism needs a complex creator?

Who designed and created god - the complex creator?

There has to be a beginning though, so why can't God be the beginning?

Reply 710

Original post by itsonlybeth

There has to be a beginning though, so why can't God be the beginning?

Does there? Can you prove that? If there does, why does there have to be a creator? It is simpler if there isn't one.

Reply 711

troubadour.

Original post by itsonlybeth

something like that maybe

That's not the most informative answer ever, to be fair. :beard:

A deist is somebody who is convinced by an argument from design, as you are, but makes no claims about the nature of god in the way that theists do, such as claiming to know how many times a day people should pray or whether or not people should mutilate the genitals of their children in infancy, in order to avoid eternal punishment. Does that sound like you? :holmes:

Reply 712

Original post by Good bloke

Ah! Yes, argument by lack of imagination.

We would not be here talking about it if the parameters were wrong. And maybe in a parallel universe the constants are wrong and there is either no life or a different kind of life. There is no fundamental necessity for life to be carbon-based, for instance, if the constraints were different.

Well as you are in damage control right now, my argument isn't that bad

Reply 713

chemting

16

Original post by itsonlybeth

There has to be a beginning though, so why can't God be the beginning?

Because that is pretty unhelpful as it is based on special pleading - the "god of the gaps" argument. But if the complexity of the world is enough evidence for you to believe in a god - then that's great. I just want to know, why do you stop that line of reasoning at god? I mean if I look at god, and wonder at how complex s/he must be to create a complex world - then why can't I assume this being has an even more complex creator?

Reply 714

username2385417

14

"Anyway, life is adapted to this universe through evolution of primitive chemicals and cells; the universe is not adapted to support life."

Yes, it should be this way round. Why don't more people see this obvious thing?

This reminds me of Voltaire's Pangloss arguing that the legs were obvs designed to fit into trousers.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 715

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

Well as you are in damage control right now, my argument isn't that bad

I really don't understand. Damage control? I am not the one putting forth flawed arguments. Non-carbon life is a genuine possibility, and so are parallel universes in the multiverse theory.

Reply 716

username2385417

14

Original post by Can'tStumpTrump

Well as you are in damage control right now, my argument isn't that bad

Nope, he's putting forward counter arguments that have some credibility because they are suggested in calculation/observation. They have flaws yes, but at least he didn't just copypaste what another person said and call it his argument.

Reply 717