Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

scientific reasons for believing in god? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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".
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Peroxidation is a physicist, too.



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

    something like that maybe
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    (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:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    "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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    prove it, then you can make that argument, until then it's speculation
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamilarahman)
    Hello there. As far as I am concerned there are a lot of scientific evidence said in the Quran 1400 years back which we humans are basically discovering now. One of these I read about is the description of embryo development in human given perfectly in the quran thousands year back. I may not be able to describe it perfectly so I am giving you the link which also has reference. Also know that there are many more such things in the quran its my ignorance i do not know fully

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran...ce/embryo.html

    Hope this helps you can find out more in the internet.
    This has been addressed a million times on here. The Quran gets embryology hopelessly wrong. It compares the embryo to a leech (this is false), says semen comes from between the backbone and ribs (this is wrong), claims man starts as a blood clot (not true), asserts bones are formed before flesh (this is incorrect) and completely fails to mention the female ovum. An all-knowing God would not have made these errors and omissions and Quranic embryology just plagiarised from work on embryology that had already been conducted by the Greeks and others.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Can'tStumpTrump)
    The probability of the universe and life forming as is, is miniscule
    Extremely unlikely events happen all the time, winning the lottery to name just one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Extremely unlikely events happen all the time, winning the lottery to name just one.
    yeah, not the point at all though, sorry
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Can'tStumpTrump)
    prove it, then you can make that argument, until then it's speculation
    Well prove then that the cosmological constant is the result of fine 'tuning'...

    Neither argument is just pure speculation....and these are exactly the kinds of disagreements that this thread should encourage IMO, as long as they are explored both ends thoroughly.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.