chikushou
chikushou
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:19:54 +0000
I am in the process of researching and updating this. If anyone wants information that I have thusfar excluded, or that you think you could present more thoroughly or accurately, feel free to PM them to me. I will consider adding them.
Please don't quote the entire post. If you have a problem with part of it, just quote that part. We don't want to waste space when the majority of your response is not relevant to the majority of this post.
I. What is a God?
A God, by my standards, is an existance which may or may not be conscious, though is generally taken to be canscious, on which the existance of life, the universe, and everything is dependant, and without which, nothing would exist. A God can simply be the general, somewhat conceptual "everything", because if everything did not exist, then nothing would exist. By my standards, it is not the existance of God that we question, but the nature of God. For instance, the main question is, is God conscious or not?
A deity is a conscious God, or the "Conscious Guider" mentioned later in my post. These are often still referred to as "Gods". However, they are also put under certain qualifications. The Intelligent Design God, which, contrary to popular belief, is distinctly separate from the Christian God, though both are conscious and could possibly guide the course of the universe, holds a certain premise which makes it indisputably non-existant by scientific standards, to which it claims to adhere. It holds the reason for its existance is that life, the universe, and everything is too complex to have developed on its own, or the principles on which these things are based too complex to have existed on their own without intelligent planning. I will explain what makes this faulty, in the context of what ID and most of its supporters hold true.
II. Of which God is she disproving the existance?
Why do I add this? Because, believe or not, the term "God" need not refer to only the Christian God, as most people seem to be deluded to believe. So then, am I disproving the existance of the Christian God? Nope, not by my standards. Nor the Muslim or Jewish God, but they are actually the same with different interpretations.
Is it any of the Hindu gods? No.
Greek gods/goddesses? Nein.
Buddhist God? There isn't a definite Buddhist god.
Flying Spaghetti Monster? Well, no. I mean, yes. Well....we'll call it a distinct "sorta".
The dark lord Xenu? Erm...I don't think he constitutes a God.
Then, chiku-darling, what God is it?
It is none other than the God whose existance is "proven" by the "theory" of Intelligent Design.
Just a reminder: RED, BOLDED FONTS ARE YOUR FRIENDS!
Update [4/05/06]: Two words for y'all: Scientific paradox in Intelligent Design. Not philosophical, not religious. That is my point. Find it.
Update [3/16/06]: Evidently, I need to point out that this is in response to ID and, more importantly, those who say that ID is a scientific principle. The title is valid, because the entire ID argument is basically: "God exists and I can prove it". So I reverse it, and explain why further on in the post. Hopefully your literacy will not fail you before you read certain necessary elements of this post.
To add, some people have also commented on the fact that God need not be part of the universal uniformity. Well, then that in and of itself rules out ID as a scientific principle. Science deals with what can be observed as uniformally accurate, so cannot deal with theories on an existance outside of uniformity.
Update: [3/17/06] Evidently I need to say, once again, that I'm not an atheist, and I don't believe that one can prove or disprove the existance of a higher being. Stop ignoring what I say and look for the intended irony in this.
Update: [3/30/06]: This is not a referrence to any religion. Basic literacy and the ability to read past this first post should tell you that. Stop acting like it is.
On with the original post:
A Brief Disclaimer:
To All God-worshipping people who might be offended by this:
Please note that it is not necessarily God whose existence I'm disproving. It could be, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
To All Pastafarians whom I might have offended:
Please note that I am not necessarily disproving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It could be, say, God.
To all who believe our existence was started and guided by aliens/the aliens who started and guided our existence and might be offended by being left out of the previous two notes as well as this topic:
Please note that I am not necessarily disproving their/your existence. It could be, say, God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
With that being said, you all may be wondering exactly how I am going to disprove God's/FSM's existence.
There is, of course, the Douglas Adams theory, which goes something like this:
Though this does, in fact, bear relevance as an argument in some instances, it is not what I will use to prove this nonexistence. There is a more scientific approach.
So, you may ask, is she planning to prove the nonexistance of God?
It is by none other than the superiorly scientific Intelligent Design theory.
As you all may know, Intelligent Design states that, because our existence is so incredibly complex, there must be some sort of conscious guidance that got us to where we are. Among the reasonings of these are that, since we have eyes, and without any one aspect of our eyes, we would be unable to see, every aspect of our eyes must have been developed at once.
In short, life, the universe and everything is so complex, that it could only possibly have happened by conscious guidance. It would be impossible for everything to exist as it is without conscious guidance.
Now, let's consider this Conscious Guider. In order to be able to design* something as complex as the universe, he would inevitably have to be as, if not more, complex than the universe. That this being would have created the universe out of dumb luck is out of the question, as shown by the Intelligent Design theory.
Because something as complex as the universe could not have developed without conscious guidance, it is illogical, and even paradoxical to say that this Conscious Guider could have existed without conscious guidance. Therefore, this Conscious Guider cannot exist, because his existence would be far too complicated to explain.
The only possible solution to this problem would be if this Conscious Guider were created by an even more complex Conscious Guider, and this pattern went on forever.
This, however, is infinitely complicated, and thereby infinitely improbable. Thus, the only solution is that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean, God. I mean, Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean...erm, yeah.
A second disclaimer in smaller letters:
No, this is not necessarily meant to be funny. If you are amused by it, good for you. If not, well, hopefully you still get the point. sweatdrop I'm off.
A third disclaimer in even smaller letters:
Yes, I do realize that this argument has huge flaws in it as an argument concerning the existance of God. But, that was ultimately not the point. Let's consider, then, what it was that I actually invalidated as a scientific theory. Toodles.
*Edit: This was originally "create", but, as was pointed out to me, the word was too ambiguous for this purpose. And since we're reading, let's not forget to think as well. biggrin
**Edit: Religion, as I am defining it, means "The institutionalized and material aspects of spirituality, defined by its members rather than its ideology".
Summary: What's the flaw in this argument? The idea that something can be too complex to have developed on its own. What's more, this concept is opinion, not fact. It cannot be proven that the evolution of the human race, or the human race itself, is too complicated to have evolved by natural processes. From what I can tell, in any situation where life has formed and maintained itself for an equal amount of time, it is likely that a species as complex, though, quite probably, distinctly different from the human race would have formed.
If we were to form a thesis that, in fact, life is too complicated to have been formed as it is without a conscious guidance, the logical extension is that the conscious guidance would have to be more complex than the life it designed. Thus, by following the thesis that anything above a certain level requires a designer, it is shown that the "god web" I described must exist.
This being notably more complicated than any scientific theory and also based on a premise which is not necessarily true renders this inaccurate as a scientific theory.
III. Evolution, and why it doesn't contradict the existance of God.
~Doing some research on the matter. Will complete this shortly.~
In the meantime, I will start on some of my basic stuff on this.
The most obvious reason that evolution doesn't contradict the existance of a god is because it, well, doesn't have anything to do with a god. Science in general doesn't have anything to do with god, and thereby doesn't prove or disprove the existance of any deity.
What might cause this confusion? The fact that science, because it does not involve the existance of a god at all, for, as the previous section stated, theories involving the existance of a god are scientifically paradoxical, all scientific theories do not require the existance of a higher being.
Is it possible that a higher being exists and is guiding all of this? Yes. But this higher being, if it is indeed as high as its supporters claim, would be eternally beyond our observational compabilities. Not to mention, the necessity or lack thereof for this being is purely opinion. There is no scientific necessity for a higher being.
This will be continued with an example of why the theory of evolution doesn't even contradict what the Bible says, and Young-Earth Creationists need to read a little better. I will respond to Christianity because it is most commonly Christians with whom I have to deal. If anyone requests a different religion which they wish for me to oppose, however, I will do the appropriate research as well.
Meanwhile, once again, an interesting link involving the Catholic church's opinion on the matter.
IV. What is a scientific theory?
Alas one of the major problems in all of this is the controversy over the word "theory". So allow me to make a few distinctions for people.
Fact - a fact is something that can observed and taken for true, given that what we see, hear, taste, smell, and feel are true. An example of a fact is to say that we(humans) have opposable thumbs. How do I know this? Because an opposable thumb is a thumb that can reach across the palm. I can reach my thumb across my palm. Therefore, it is opposable.
Speculation - In science, a speculation is what most people think a theory is. A speculation is an idea that could be true, meaning that no fact opposes it, but does not have any facts to directly suggest it. I will provide an example later.
Theory - A theory is one step beyond speculation. It has no facts disproving it, and does have facts supporting it. A scientific theory then, is generally accepted, because the evidence, as we have it now, leads us to this conclusion.
Please don't quote the entire post. If you have a problem with part of it, just quote that part. We don't want to waste space when the majority of your response is not relevant to the majority of this post.
I. What is a God?
A God, by my standards, is an existance which may or may not be conscious, though is generally taken to be canscious, on which the existance of life, the universe, and everything is dependant, and without which, nothing would exist. A God can simply be the general, somewhat conceptual "everything", because if everything did not exist, then nothing would exist. By my standards, it is not the existance of God that we question, but the nature of God. For instance, the main question is, is God conscious or not?
A deity is a conscious God, or the "Conscious Guider" mentioned later in my post. These are often still referred to as "Gods". However, they are also put under certain qualifications. The Intelligent Design God, which, contrary to popular belief, is distinctly separate from the Christian God, though both are conscious and could possibly guide the course of the universe, holds a certain premise which makes it indisputably non-existant by scientific standards, to which it claims to adhere. It holds the reason for its existance is that life, the universe, and everything is too complex to have developed on its own, or the principles on which these things are based too complex to have existed on their own without intelligent planning. I will explain what makes this faulty, in the context of what ID and most of its supporters hold true.
II. Of which God is she disproving the existance?
Why do I add this? Because, believe or not, the term "God" need not refer to only the Christian God, as most people seem to be deluded to believe. So then, am I disproving the existance of the Christian God? Nope, not by my standards. Nor the Muslim or Jewish God, but they are actually the same with different interpretations.
Is it any of the Hindu gods? No.
Greek gods/goddesses? Nein.
Buddhist God? There isn't a definite Buddhist god.
Flying Spaghetti Monster? Well, no. I mean, yes. Well....we'll call it a distinct "sorta".
The dark lord Xenu? Erm...I don't think he constitutes a God.
Then, chiku-darling, what God is it?
It is none other than the God whose existance is "proven" by the "theory" of Intelligent Design.
Just a reminder: RED, BOLDED FONTS ARE YOUR FRIENDS!
Update [4/05/06]: Two words for y'all: Scientific paradox in Intelligent Design. Not philosophical, not religious. That is my point. Find it.
Update [3/16/06]: Evidently, I need to point out that this is in response to ID and, more importantly, those who say that ID is a scientific principle. The title is valid, because the entire ID argument is basically: "God exists and I can prove it". So I reverse it, and explain why further on in the post. Hopefully your literacy will not fail you before you read certain necessary elements of this post.
To add, some people have also commented on the fact that God need not be part of the universal uniformity. Well, then that in and of itself rules out ID as a scientific principle. Science deals with what can be observed as uniformally accurate, so cannot deal with theories on an existance outside of uniformity.
Update: [3/17/06] Evidently I need to say, once again, that I'm not an atheist, and I don't believe that one can prove or disprove the existance of a higher being. Stop ignoring what I say and look for the intended irony in this.
Update: [3/30/06]: This is not a referrence to any religion. Basic literacy and the ability to read past this first post should tell you that. Stop acting like it is.
On with the original post:
A Brief Disclaimer:
To All God-worshipping people who might be offended by this:
Please note that it is not necessarily God whose existence I'm disproving. It could be, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
To All Pastafarians whom I might have offended:
Please note that I am not necessarily disproving the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It could be, say, God.
To all who believe our existence was started and guided by aliens/the aliens who started and guided our existence and might be offended by being left out of the previous two notes as well as this topic:
Please note that I am not necessarily disproving their/your existence. It could be, say, God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
With that being said, you all may be wondering exactly how I am going to disprove God's/FSM's existence.
There is, of course, the Douglas Adams theory, which goes something like this:
Douglas Adams
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed in the next zebra crossing.
"But," says Man, "the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed in the next zebra crossing.
Though this does, in fact, bear relevance as an argument in some instances, it is not what I will use to prove this nonexistence. There is a more scientific approach.
So, you may ask, is she planning to prove the nonexistance of God?
It is by none other than the superiorly scientific Intelligent Design theory.
As you all may know, Intelligent Design states that, because our existence is so incredibly complex, there must be some sort of conscious guidance that got us to where we are. Among the reasonings of these are that, since we have eyes, and without any one aspect of our eyes, we would be unable to see, every aspect of our eyes must have been developed at once.
In short, life, the universe and everything is so complex, that it could only possibly have happened by conscious guidance. It would be impossible for everything to exist as it is without conscious guidance.
Now, let's consider this Conscious Guider. In order to be able to design* something as complex as the universe, he would inevitably have to be as, if not more, complex than the universe. That this being would have created the universe out of dumb luck is out of the question, as shown by the Intelligent Design theory.
Because something as complex as the universe could not have developed without conscious guidance, it is illogical, and even paradoxical to say that this Conscious Guider could have existed without conscious guidance. Therefore, this Conscious Guider cannot exist, because his existence would be far too complicated to explain.
The only possible solution to this problem would be if this Conscious Guider were created by an even more complex Conscious Guider, and this pattern went on forever.
This, however, is infinitely complicated, and thereby infinitely improbable. Thus, the only solution is that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean, God. I mean, Flying Spaghetti Monster. I mean...erm, yeah.
A second disclaimer in smaller letters:
No, this is not necessarily meant to be funny. If you are amused by it, good for you. If not, well, hopefully you still get the point. sweatdrop I'm off.
A third disclaimer in even smaller letters:
Yes, I do realize that this argument has huge flaws in it as an argument concerning the existance of God. But, that was ultimately not the point. Let's consider, then, what it was that I actually invalidated as a scientific theory. Toodles.
*Edit: This was originally "create", but, as was pointed out to me, the word was too ambiguous for this purpose. And since we're reading, let's not forget to think as well. biggrin
**Edit: Religion, as I am defining it, means "The institutionalized and material aspects of spirituality, defined by its members rather than its ideology".
Summary: What's the flaw in this argument? The idea that something can be too complex to have developed on its own. What's more, this concept is opinion, not fact. It cannot be proven that the evolution of the human race, or the human race itself, is too complicated to have evolved by natural processes. From what I can tell, in any situation where life has formed and maintained itself for an equal amount of time, it is likely that a species as complex, though, quite probably, distinctly different from the human race would have formed.
If we were to form a thesis that, in fact, life is too complicated to have been formed as it is without a conscious guidance, the logical extension is that the conscious guidance would have to be more complex than the life it designed. Thus, by following the thesis that anything above a certain level requires a designer, it is shown that the "god web" I described must exist.
This being notably more complicated than any scientific theory and also based on a premise which is not necessarily true renders this inaccurate as a scientific theory.
III. Evolution, and why it doesn't contradict the existance of God.
~Doing some research on the matter. Will complete this shortly.~
In the meantime, I will start on some of my basic stuff on this.
The most obvious reason that evolution doesn't contradict the existance of a god is because it, well, doesn't have anything to do with a god. Science in general doesn't have anything to do with god, and thereby doesn't prove or disprove the existance of any deity.
What might cause this confusion? The fact that science, because it does not involve the existance of a god at all, for, as the previous section stated, theories involving the existance of a god are scientifically paradoxical, all scientific theories do not require the existance of a higher being.
Is it possible that a higher being exists and is guiding all of this? Yes. But this higher being, if it is indeed as high as its supporters claim, would be eternally beyond our observational compabilities. Not to mention, the necessity or lack thereof for this being is purely opinion. There is no scientific necessity for a higher being.
This will be continued with an example of why the theory of evolution doesn't even contradict what the Bible says, and Young-Earth Creationists need to read a little better. I will respond to Christianity because it is most commonly Christians with whom I have to deal. If anyone requests a different religion which they wish for me to oppose, however, I will do the appropriate research as well.
Meanwhile, once again, an interesting link involving the Catholic church's opinion on the matter.
IV. What is a scientific theory?
Alas one of the major problems in all of this is the controversy over the word "theory". So allow me to make a few distinctions for people.
Fact - a fact is something that can observed and taken for true, given that what we see, hear, taste, smell, and feel are true. An example of a fact is to say that we(humans) have opposable thumbs. How do I know this? Because an opposable thumb is a thumb that can reach across the palm. I can reach my thumb across my palm. Therefore, it is opposable.
Speculation - In science, a speculation is what most people think a theory is. A speculation is an idea that could be true, meaning that no fact opposes it, but does not have any facts to directly suggest it. I will provide an example later.
Theory - A theory is one step beyond speculation. It has no facts disproving it, and does have facts supporting it. A scientific theory then, is generally accepted, because the evidence, as we have it now, leads us to this conclusion.
Lethal7
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:26:41 +0000
Hello this is the post from my thread, and I hope that we can have intelligent discussion from this. Edit to my opening post. One I am not forcing my belief on you I hope to debate that is why my argument is co closed off. Secondly the big bang and evoultion are not arguments for the non-existence of God. Please read carefully.
Where Did The Universe Come From.
This is the ulitmate question of creation:Where did the universe come from? Why does it exists? The bible begins with the words,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The bible thus teaches that the universe had a beginning. It does not teach that this beginning was recent. That is a mistaken inference based on adding up the life spans of various old testament figures. But the Old Testament genealogies do not purport to record every generation, and in any case, such a rekoning would take us back only as far as the creation of life on earth (Genesis1:2), not to the very origin of the universe (Genesis1:1). From ancient times until the twnetith century the biblical doctrine that the universe had a beginnig has been repudiated by both Greek Philosophy and modern atheism. In Spit of this, the church has stood firm in the affirmation of the temporal creation of the universe from nothing.
Then in 1929 an alarming thing happened. A Scientist named Edwin Hubblediscovered that light from distant galaxies appears to be redder than it should be. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led is that the light is redder because the universee is growing apart-it is expanding! Therefore, the light from the galaxies is affected, since they are moving away from us.
This is the interesting part:Hubble not only showed that the universe was expanding but that it is expanding the same in all directions. To get a picture of this, imagine a balloon with buttons glued to it. As you blow up the balloon the buttons get farther and farther apart, even though though are stuck in place. These buttons are just like the galaxies in space. As space itself expands, all the galaxies in the universe grow farther and frather apart.
The staggering implication is that, as we go back in time, everything was closer and closer together. Ultimately, at some point in the finite past, the entire universe was contracted down to a mathematical point, ahich scientist call the "singularity," from whichit has been expanding ever since. The farther back one goes in the past, the denser the universe becomes, so that one finally reaches a ponit of infinite destiny form which the universe began to expand. This initial event has come to be known as the "Big Bang."
This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when on reflects on the fact that nothing existed before it. Nothing existed prior to the singularity, for it is the edge of physical space and time. It therefore represents the origin, not only of all matter and energy, but also of physical space and time themselves. Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler observe, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity,so,if the universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have creation out of nothing."1
Such a conclusion is profoundly disturbing for anyone who ponders it. For the question cannopt be surpressed: Why does the Universe exist rather than nothing? There can be no natural or physical cause of the Big Bang event, since, in philosopher Quentin Smith's words. "It belong analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that is not the effect of proir physical events. The definition of a singularity. . . entails that it is impossible to extend the spacetime manifold beyond the singularity. . . . This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect to some prior natrual process."2 Sir Arthur Eddington, comtemplating the beginning of the univers, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it except myself."3 He finally felt force to conclude,"The beginning seems to present insurperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."4
Some people were understandably disturbed by the idea that the universe appeared to have been created from nothing. So they tried to find ways to avert the initial singularity and regain a eternal universe, but all in vain. The History of the Twentieth century cosmology has been the history of the repeated falsification of such nonstandard theroies and the corroboration of the Big Bang theroy.5 It has been the overwhelming verdict of the scientific community that none of these alternative theroies are superior to the Big Bang theroy. Again and again models aimed at averting the prediction of the standard model of an absolute beginnig of the universe have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning after all. For example in such theroies, like the oscillating universe (which expands and contracts forever)of the chaotic inflationary universe (Which continually spawns new universes), while the universes posited do have a potientially infinite universe, they turn out to have only a finite past. Vacumm fluctuation theroies (Which postulate an eternal vacuum out of which our universe is born) cannot explain why, if the vacuum was eternal we do not observe an infinitely old universe. Though still bandied about in the popular press, such models have been abandoned by almost all theroist today.
Given the obvious theological implications of the origin of the universe from nothing, we can expect that alternative theroies to the Big Bang model, which will attempt to restore an eternal universe, will continue to be propsed. Paul Steinhardt of Princeton Universtiy has recently recieved a great deal of coverage in the popular press for his new cyclic/ekpyrotic model of the universe. 6 Such propsed alternatives are to be welcomed and elvauted by the evidence, for if the pattern of faliure of such alternatives continues, the prediction of an absolute beginning by the standard Big Bang modle will further be corroborated, thereby gaining in credibility. Despite many people's predisposition to the contrary, the accumulating evicence has consistently supported the view that the universe was created out of nothing. J.M. Wersiger professor of Physics at Auburn University, makes these observations: "At first the scientific community was very reluctant to accept the idea of the birth of the universe. Not only did the Big Bang model seem to give in to the Judeo-Christian idesa of a beginning of the world, but it also seemed to call for an act of supernatural creation......It took time, observational evidence, and careful verification of predictions made by the Big Bang model to convince the scientific community to accept the ides of a cosmic genesis.....The Big Bang is a very succesful model that imposed itdelf on a very reluctant scientific community"7
Aganist all expectation, science thus verified the Bible's prediction of the beginning of the Universe.
What Does The Fine-Tuning Of The Universe Mean?
The fact that the universe exist is no guarantee that it will be life permitting. Scientists once thought that whatever the intinal conditions of the universe were, eventually the universe would evolvethe complex life-forms we see today. One of the newest findings concerning the origin and evolution of life, however, has been the discovery of how incredibly fine-tuned our universe had to be right from the moment of the Big Bang in order for life to originate anywhere at all in the cosmos. Durning the last thirty years or so, scientists have been stunned by the discovery of how complex and sensitive a balance of initial conditions must be given in the Big Bang in order forthe Universe to permit the origin and evolution of life. In various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quanities. If these were to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. Indeed, in many cases, not even stars and planets, not even chemistry, not even atomic matter itself, would exist, much less biological life. In fact, the universe appears to have been incomprehensibly fine-tuned from the moment of it's inception to permit the existence of intelligent life.
For example, changes in the gravitational force or the elctromagnetic field by only one part in 10^40 would have preculded the existence of stars like our sun, making life impossible. A decrease or increase in the speed of the expansion by only one part in a million million when the temperature of the universe was 10^10 degrees would have either resulted in the universe's recollapse along time ago into a hot fireball or precluded galaxies from ever condensing, in both cases making life impossible. The so-called cosmological constant, crucial to the development of our universe, must be inexplicably fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 10^53 in order for a life permitting universe to exist These are just some of the many constants and quanities that must be fine-tined if the universe is to be life permitting.
And it's not just each quantity that must be fine-tuned, but theri rarios to one another must also be finely tuned. Thus, the situation is not merely like all the roulette wheels at the Monte Carlo turning up with a certain set of numbers, and those numbers also having to stand in a certain ratios to each other. For Example, the number on one wheel must be seven times the number on another and one-third the number on another wheel. It is overwhelmingly improbable that a life permitting universe should exist.
Sometimes people will say, "Yes, our universe is improbable. But any universe is equally improbable. It's like winning the lottery. Any particular person's winning it is highly improbable, but somebody has to win it." What this objection helps bring out is that it is not just the probability that is at stake here, but the specified probability. It is not the probability of one universe or another existing, but the probability of a life-permiting universe existing. Thus the correct anology would be a lottery ball in which a billion, billion, billion black balls were mixed together with one white ball, and you were invited to reach in blindfolded and pick out a ball. While ever ball has a equal improbability of being picked, nevertheless, it is overwhelming more probable that whichever ball you pick it will be black rather than white. To complete the anology, imagine now that you life depended on the ball's being white; pick out a white ball or you'll be killed! If you reached, blindfolded, into those jillions of black balls and discovered that you had pulled out the one and only white ball you might suspect that the whole thing was rigged. It you are still skeptical, imagine that in order to stave off execution you had to succeed in doing this three times in a row. The probabilities involoved would not be significantly different, but you would be nuts if you though you had accomplished this by chance.
What Explains The Actual Origin Of Life?
The fine-tuning of the universe supplies certain prerequisties for the existence of life anywhere in the cosmos, but it does not guarantee that life will actually arise in the universe. In other words, while these finely-tuned conditions are necessary conditions for life, they are not sufficient conditions for life. So we may wonder, what else is needed? What explains the actual origins of life?
Most of us were probably taught in school that life originated in the so-called "primoridal soup" by chance chemical reactions. Back in the 1950's Stanley Miller was able to synthesize amino acids by passing electric sparks through methane gas. While amino acids are not alive, protiens are made out of amino acids and protiens are found in living things and so the hope was that somehow the origin of life could be explained.
On the face of it, such a scenario for life's origin seemed hopelesslw improbable. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe estimated that theodds against the required ten to ywnety amino acids coming together by chance (remember at this stage in the game there is no natural selection and so no chemical evolution) to form an enzyme is on the order of one chance out or 10^20. Given the size of the earth's ocean and billions of years avaliable, they thought such an improability could be faced. But they point out that there are two thousand different enzymes made out of amino acids, all of which would have to be formed by chance, and the odds of that happening are around 10^40,000, odds so "outrageously small" that they could not be faced "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."8 And that is only the beginning . it still remains for DNA to arise from protiens and for the complex machienry of the cell to arise. These issues are just to complex to set numbers to.
Now the bible does not say how life originated. It just says,"God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation:seed bearing plants and trees.....let the waters teem with living creatures.'"(Genesis 1:11,20). The bible is not a science book and doesn't tell us what means, if any, God used to create life. But the scientific evidence is certainly in accord with the origin of life's being, in Francis Crick's words, a miracle, that is, an event that was supernaturally wrought by God. The Bible and science are certainly not in conflict at this point, in fact, if anything the scientific evicence is clearer than the Bible that life's origin was due to a miraclos act of a creator God.
Is The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution True?
The question of whether the noe-darwinian theroy of biological evolution is true is much subtler then most people realize. Part of the problem lies in the ambiguity of the word evolution, which is sometimes taken to mean nothing more than "change over time," which nobody disagrees with. We therefore need to move beyond the terminology and llok at what the theory actually holds. There are at least two main tenets of the Neo-Darwinian theroy of biological evoultion: first, what we may callthe doctirne of common ancestry, and second the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection.
According to the doctrine of common ancestry, all life-forms evolved from a single primoridal ancestor. In favor of this doctrine is the fact that almost all living organisms share the same genetic make code, or DNA. One could say that God simply used tha same basic design plan to make the different kinds of seperate organisms he made. But it migth seem more plausible that the genetic similarity of all living things is due to their being related to each other, all sharing a common ancestor.
On the other hand, the fossil evidence stands starkly in oppostion to the doctirne of common ancestry. When Darwin purposed his theroy, one of it's major weaknesses was that no organisms stood midway bewteen other organisms as transitional forms. Darwin answered this, however, by saying that these transitional animals existed in the past and would eventually be uncovered. But as palentologistshave unearthed fossil remains, they have not found these transitional forms; they have just found more distinct animals and plants that have died off. Sure there are a few suspected transitional forms, like the Archaeopteryx, a bird with some reptilian features. But if Neo-Darwinism theroy were true, there would would not be only a few, rare, missing links;rather as Michael Denton emphasizes, there would be literally millions of transitional forms in the fossil record.9 Think, for example, of all the intermediateforms that would have to exist for a bat and a whale to have evolved from a common ancestor! The problem can no longer be dismissed by saying that we have not dug deep enough. The transitional forms haven't been found because they aren't there. Thus, the evicence concerning the doctrine of common ancestry is mixed. The DNA evidence lends some support to it but the fossil evidence goes against it.
What about the mechanics of genetic mutation and natural selection, which are supposed to drive evolution? According to the theory, evolutionary development occurs because random mutations produce new features in living things, and those that are advantagous for survival are preserved and reproduced.
I know of no evidence at all that these mechanisms are capable of producing the sort biological complexity we see in the world tday from an original single-celled organism. In fact, the evidence is positively against it. For one thing the processes are just to slow. In their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the course of human evolution, the development of aerobic respiration, the development of an inner skeleton, the development of the eye, for example, each of which is so improbable that before it would occur, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth!10 They conclude,"There has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life is so improbable that is have unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe."11 If this is true, why think that intelligent life evolved by chance on this planet.
A second problem with genetic mutationand natural selection is that they cannot explain the origin of the irreducibly complex systems. This is the main point of Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box12 Behe who is a microbiologist at Lehigh University, points out that certain systems in the cell, like the blood-clotting mechanisms or the hairlike structures called cilia, are like incrediblt complicated, microscopic machines that cannot function at all unless all the parts are present and functioning . Thus they cannot evolove piecemeal. Surveying thousands of sciuentific articles on these systems, Behe discovered that virtually nothing has ever been written on how such irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved by random mutation and natural selection.13 There is no scientific understanding whatsoever about how such systems originated;with respect to them Darwin has absolutely no explanatory power.
In sum, in the absence of a methodological commitment to naturalism, there really does not appear to be compelling evidence for the Neo-Darwinian theory. On the Contrary, there seems to be pretty peruasive evidence that the neo-Dariwnian account cannot be the full story. Again the bible does not tell us how God created biologically complex organisms any more than it tells us how he created life.(The account of the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2 is obviously highly symbolic,since God, not having lungs or a mouth didn't literally blow into Adam's nose.) He could have created ex nihilo(out of nothing), of he could have have used lower stages of living organisms as raw material for the creation of higher forms through systemic changes that would have wholy improbable on any naturalistic account. The Christian is open to follow the evidence where it leads. But what the evidence does seem to indicate is that the existence of biological complexity demands intelligence such as the Bible describes.
Conclusion
After all the evidence that I have just supplied I wish that you may search both your mind and your heart and look for the answer that is already within you. More questions please PM me or come to my other thread. Open fourm on Christianity.
In His Path
Vega.
Works Cited
1. John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon,1986),442
2. Quentin Smith,"The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe," in William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology(Oxford:Clarendon,1993), 120
3. Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe(New York:Macmillian,19930, 124
4. Eddington, The Expanding Universe., 178
5. For disscussion see "Naturalism and Cosmology," in Naturalism:A Critical Appraisal, ed. Wm. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland, Routledge studies in Twentieth-Century Philosophy(London: Routledge, 2000), 215-52
6. Andrei Linde, who thinks that Steinhardts' model "is plagued by numerous unsolved problems," complains that the cyclic/akypotic scenario is "very popular among journalists," but "rather unpopular among scientists"("Cyclic Universe runs into Criticism," Physics World [June 2002],8 )
7. J.M. Wersinger, "Genesis:The origin of the Universe," National Forum(winter 1996),9,12. Wersinger himself apparently tries to avoid the absolute origin of the universe from nothing by appeal to a vaccum fluctuation, an idea that has been shown untenable, as I explain in the article referred to in note 6
8. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space(New York:Simon & Schuster, 1981), 24.
9. Michael Denton, Evolution:A Theory in Crisis(Bethesda, Md.:Adler & Adler, 1985), Chapters8-9
10. Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 561-65
11. Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,133.
12. Michale Behe, Darwin's Black Box(New York:Free Press, 1996).
13. For Behe's response to critics, see Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules," Philosophia Christi 3, no1(2001) 165-79
14.Entire script taken from "Who made God" by Ravi Zacharias.
Where Did The Universe Come From.
This is the ulitmate question of creation:Where did the universe come from? Why does it exists? The bible begins with the words,"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The bible thus teaches that the universe had a beginning. It does not teach that this beginning was recent. That is a mistaken inference based on adding up the life spans of various old testament figures. But the Old Testament genealogies do not purport to record every generation, and in any case, such a rekoning would take us back only as far as the creation of life on earth (Genesis1:2), not to the very origin of the universe (Genesis1:1). From ancient times until the twnetith century the biblical doctrine that the universe had a beginnig has been repudiated by both Greek Philosophy and modern atheism. In Spit of this, the church has stood firm in the affirmation of the temporal creation of the universe from nothing.
Then in 1929 an alarming thing happened. A Scientist named Edwin Hubblediscovered that light from distant galaxies appears to be redder than it should be. The startling conclusion to which Hubble was led is that the light is redder because the universee is growing apart-it is expanding! Therefore, the light from the galaxies is affected, since they are moving away from us.
This is the interesting part:Hubble not only showed that the universe was expanding but that it is expanding the same in all directions. To get a picture of this, imagine a balloon with buttons glued to it. As you blow up the balloon the buttons get farther and farther apart, even though though are stuck in place. These buttons are just like the galaxies in space. As space itself expands, all the galaxies in the universe grow farther and frather apart.
The staggering implication is that, as we go back in time, everything was closer and closer together. Ultimately, at some point in the finite past, the entire universe was contracted down to a mathematical point, ahich scientist call the "singularity," from whichit has been expanding ever since. The farther back one goes in the past, the denser the universe becomes, so that one finally reaches a ponit of infinite destiny form which the universe began to expand. This initial event has come to be known as the "Big Bang."
This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when on reflects on the fact that nothing existed before it. Nothing existed prior to the singularity, for it is the edge of physical space and time. It therefore represents the origin, not only of all matter and energy, but also of physical space and time themselves. Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler observe, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity,so,if the universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have creation out of nothing."1
Such a conclusion is profoundly disturbing for anyone who ponders it. For the question cannopt be surpressed: Why does the Universe exist rather than nothing? There can be no natural or physical cause of the Big Bang event, since, in philosopher Quentin Smith's words. "It belong analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that is not the effect of proir physical events. The definition of a singularity. . . entails that it is impossible to extend the spacetime manifold beyond the singularity. . . . This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect to some prior natrual process."2 Sir Arthur Eddington, comtemplating the beginning of the univers, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it except myself."3 He finally felt force to conclude,"The beginning seems to present insurperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."4
Some people were understandably disturbed by the idea that the universe appeared to have been created from nothing. So they tried to find ways to avert the initial singularity and regain a eternal universe, but all in vain. The History of the Twentieth century cosmology has been the history of the repeated falsification of such nonstandard theroies and the corroboration of the Big Bang theroy.5 It has been the overwhelming verdict of the scientific community that none of these alternative theroies are superior to the Big Bang theroy. Again and again models aimed at averting the prediction of the standard model of an absolute beginnig of the universe have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning after all. For example in such theroies, like the oscillating universe (which expands and contracts forever)of the chaotic inflationary universe (Which continually spawns new universes), while the universes posited do have a potientially infinite universe, they turn out to have only a finite past. Vacumm fluctuation theroies (Which postulate an eternal vacuum out of which our universe is born) cannot explain why, if the vacuum was eternal we do not observe an infinitely old universe. Though still bandied about in the popular press, such models have been abandoned by almost all theroist today.
Given the obvious theological implications of the origin of the universe from nothing, we can expect that alternative theroies to the Big Bang model, which will attempt to restore an eternal universe, will continue to be propsed. Paul Steinhardt of Princeton Universtiy has recently recieved a great deal of coverage in the popular press for his new cyclic/ekpyrotic model of the universe. 6 Such propsed alternatives are to be welcomed and elvauted by the evidence, for if the pattern of faliure of such alternatives continues, the prediction of an absolute beginning by the standard Big Bang modle will further be corroborated, thereby gaining in credibility. Despite many people's predisposition to the contrary, the accumulating evicence has consistently supported the view that the universe was created out of nothing. J.M. Wersiger professor of Physics at Auburn University, makes these observations: "At first the scientific community was very reluctant to accept the idea of the birth of the universe. Not only did the Big Bang model seem to give in to the Judeo-Christian idesa of a beginning of the world, but it also seemed to call for an act of supernatural creation......It took time, observational evidence, and careful verification of predictions made by the Big Bang model to convince the scientific community to accept the ides of a cosmic genesis.....The Big Bang is a very succesful model that imposed itdelf on a very reluctant scientific community"7
Aganist all expectation, science thus verified the Bible's prediction of the beginning of the Universe.
What Does The Fine-Tuning Of The Universe Mean?
The fact that the universe exist is no guarantee that it will be life permitting. Scientists once thought that whatever the intinal conditions of the universe were, eventually the universe would evolvethe complex life-forms we see today. One of the newest findings concerning the origin and evolution of life, however, has been the discovery of how incredibly fine-tuned our universe had to be right from the moment of the Big Bang in order for life to originate anywhere at all in the cosmos. Durning the last thirty years or so, scientists have been stunned by the discovery of how complex and sensitive a balance of initial conditions must be given in the Big Bang in order forthe Universe to permit the origin and evolution of life. In various fields of physics and astrophysics, classical cosmology, quantum mechanics, and biochemistry, discoveries have repeatedly disclosed that the existence of life depends on a delicate balance of physical constants and quanities. If these were to be slightly altered, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. Indeed, in many cases, not even stars and planets, not even chemistry, not even atomic matter itself, would exist, much less biological life. In fact, the universe appears to have been incomprehensibly fine-tuned from the moment of it's inception to permit the existence of intelligent life.
For example, changes in the gravitational force or the elctromagnetic field by only one part in 10^40 would have preculded the existence of stars like our sun, making life impossible. A decrease or increase in the speed of the expansion by only one part in a million million when the temperature of the universe was 10^10 degrees would have either resulted in the universe's recollapse along time ago into a hot fireball or precluded galaxies from ever condensing, in both cases making life impossible. The so-called cosmological constant, crucial to the development of our universe, must be inexplicably fine-tuned to an accuracy of one part in 10^53 in order for a life permitting universe to exist These are just some of the many constants and quanities that must be fine-tined if the universe is to be life permitting.
And it's not just each quantity that must be fine-tuned, but theri rarios to one another must also be finely tuned. Thus, the situation is not merely like all the roulette wheels at the Monte Carlo turning up with a certain set of numbers, and those numbers also having to stand in a certain ratios to each other. For Example, the number on one wheel must be seven times the number on another and one-third the number on another wheel. It is overwhelmingly improbable that a life permitting universe should exist.
Sometimes people will say, "Yes, our universe is improbable. But any universe is equally improbable. It's like winning the lottery. Any particular person's winning it is highly improbable, but somebody has to win it." What this objection helps bring out is that it is not just the probability that is at stake here, but the specified probability. It is not the probability of one universe or another existing, but the probability of a life-permiting universe existing. Thus the correct anology would be a lottery ball in which a billion, billion, billion black balls were mixed together with one white ball, and you were invited to reach in blindfolded and pick out a ball. While ever ball has a equal improbability of being picked, nevertheless, it is overwhelming more probable that whichever ball you pick it will be black rather than white. To complete the anology, imagine now that you life depended on the ball's being white; pick out a white ball or you'll be killed! If you reached, blindfolded, into those jillions of black balls and discovered that you had pulled out the one and only white ball you might suspect that the whole thing was rigged. It you are still skeptical, imagine that in order to stave off execution you had to succeed in doing this three times in a row. The probabilities involoved would not be significantly different, but you would be nuts if you though you had accomplished this by chance.
What Explains The Actual Origin Of Life?
The fine-tuning of the universe supplies certain prerequisties for the existence of life anywhere in the cosmos, but it does not guarantee that life will actually arise in the universe. In other words, while these finely-tuned conditions are necessary conditions for life, they are not sufficient conditions for life. So we may wonder, what else is needed? What explains the actual origins of life?
Most of us were probably taught in school that life originated in the so-called "primoridal soup" by chance chemical reactions. Back in the 1950's Stanley Miller was able to synthesize amino acids by passing electric sparks through methane gas. While amino acids are not alive, protiens are made out of amino acids and protiens are found in living things and so the hope was that somehow the origin of life could be explained.
On the face of it, such a scenario for life's origin seemed hopelesslw improbable. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe estimated that theodds against the required ten to ywnety amino acids coming together by chance (remember at this stage in the game there is no natural selection and so no chemical evolution) to form an enzyme is on the order of one chance out or 10^20. Given the size of the earth's ocean and billions of years avaliable, they thought such an improability could be faced. But they point out that there are two thousand different enzymes made out of amino acids, all of which would have to be formed by chance, and the odds of that happening are around 10^40,000, odds so "outrageously small" that they could not be faced "even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."8 And that is only the beginning . it still remains for DNA to arise from protiens and for the complex machienry of the cell to arise. These issues are just to complex to set numbers to.
Now the bible does not say how life originated. It just says,"God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation:seed bearing plants and trees.....let the waters teem with living creatures.'"(Genesis 1:11,20). The bible is not a science book and doesn't tell us what means, if any, God used to create life. But the scientific evidence is certainly in accord with the origin of life's being, in Francis Crick's words, a miracle, that is, an event that was supernaturally wrought by God. The Bible and science are certainly not in conflict at this point, in fact, if anything the scientific evicence is clearer than the Bible that life's origin was due to a miraclos act of a creator God.
Is The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution True?
The question of whether the noe-darwinian theroy of biological evolution is true is much subtler then most people realize. Part of the problem lies in the ambiguity of the word evolution, which is sometimes taken to mean nothing more than "change over time," which nobody disagrees with. We therefore need to move beyond the terminology and llok at what the theory actually holds. There are at least two main tenets of the Neo-Darwinian theroy of biological evoultion: first, what we may callthe doctirne of common ancestry, and second the mechanisms of genetic mutation and natural selection.
According to the doctrine of common ancestry, all life-forms evolved from a single primoridal ancestor. In favor of this doctrine is the fact that almost all living organisms share the same genetic make code, or DNA. One could say that God simply used tha same basic design plan to make the different kinds of seperate organisms he made. But it migth seem more plausible that the genetic similarity of all living things is due to their being related to each other, all sharing a common ancestor.
On the other hand, the fossil evidence stands starkly in oppostion to the doctirne of common ancestry. When Darwin purposed his theroy, one of it's major weaknesses was that no organisms stood midway bewteen other organisms as transitional forms. Darwin answered this, however, by saying that these transitional animals existed in the past and would eventually be uncovered. But as palentologistshave unearthed fossil remains, they have not found these transitional forms; they have just found more distinct animals and plants that have died off. Sure there are a few suspected transitional forms, like the Archaeopteryx, a bird with some reptilian features. But if Neo-Darwinism theroy were true, there would would not be only a few, rare, missing links;rather as Michael Denton emphasizes, there would be literally millions of transitional forms in the fossil record.9 Think, for example, of all the intermediateforms that would have to exist for a bat and a whale to have evolved from a common ancestor! The problem can no longer be dismissed by saying that we have not dug deep enough. The transitional forms haven't been found because they aren't there. Thus, the evicence concerning the doctrine of common ancestry is mixed. The DNA evidence lends some support to it but the fossil evidence goes against it.
What about the mechanics of genetic mutation and natural selection, which are supposed to drive evolution? According to the theory, evolutionary development occurs because random mutations produce new features in living things, and those that are advantagous for survival are preserved and reproduced.
I know of no evidence at all that these mechanisms are capable of producing the sort biological complexity we see in the world tday from an original single-celled organism. In fact, the evidence is positively against it. For one thing the processes are just to slow. In their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the course of human evolution, the development of aerobic respiration, the development of an inner skeleton, the development of the eye, for example, each of which is so improbable that before it would occur, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth!10 They conclude,"There has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life is so improbable that is have unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe."11 If this is true, why think that intelligent life evolved by chance on this planet.
A second problem with genetic mutationand natural selection is that they cannot explain the origin of the irreducibly complex systems. This is the main point of Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box12 Behe who is a microbiologist at Lehigh University, points out that certain systems in the cell, like the blood-clotting mechanisms or the hairlike structures called cilia, are like incrediblt complicated, microscopic machines that cannot function at all unless all the parts are present and functioning . Thus they cannot evolove piecemeal. Surveying thousands of sciuentific articles on these systems, Behe discovered that virtually nothing has ever been written on how such irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved by random mutation and natural selection.13 There is no scientific understanding whatsoever about how such systems originated;with respect to them Darwin has absolutely no explanatory power.
In sum, in the absence of a methodological commitment to naturalism, there really does not appear to be compelling evidence for the Neo-Darwinian theory. On the Contrary, there seems to be pretty peruasive evidence that the neo-Dariwnian account cannot be the full story. Again the bible does not tell us how God created biologically complex organisms any more than it tells us how he created life.(The account of the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2 is obviously highly symbolic,since God, not having lungs or a mouth didn't literally blow into Adam's nose.) He could have created ex nihilo(out of nothing), of he could have have used lower stages of living organisms as raw material for the creation of higher forms through systemic changes that would have wholy improbable on any naturalistic account. The Christian is open to follow the evidence where it leads. But what the evidence does seem to indicate is that the existence of biological complexity demands intelligence such as the Bible describes.
Conclusion
After all the evidence that I have just supplied I wish that you may search both your mind and your heart and look for the answer that is already within you. More questions please PM me or come to my other thread. Open fourm on Christianity.
In His Path
Vega.
Works Cited
1. John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon,1986),442
2. Quentin Smith,"The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe," in William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology(Oxford:Clarendon,1993), 120
3. Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe(New York:Macmillian,19930, 124
4. Eddington, The Expanding Universe., 178
5. For disscussion see "Naturalism and Cosmology," in Naturalism:A Critical Appraisal, ed. Wm. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland, Routledge studies in Twentieth-Century Philosophy(London: Routledge, 2000), 215-52
6. Andrei Linde, who thinks that Steinhardts' model "is plagued by numerous unsolved problems," complains that the cyclic/akypotic scenario is "very popular among journalists," but "rather unpopular among scientists"("Cyclic Universe runs into Criticism," Physics World [June 2002],8 )
7. J.M. Wersinger, "Genesis:The origin of the Universe," National Forum(winter 1996),9,12. Wersinger himself apparently tries to avoid the absolute origin of the universe from nothing by appeal to a vaccum fluctuation, an idea that has been shown untenable, as I explain in the article referred to in note 6
8. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space(New York:Simon & Schuster, 1981), 24.
9. Michael Denton, Evolution:A Theory in Crisis(Bethesda, Md.:Adler & Adler, 1985), Chapters8-9
10. Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, 561-65
11. Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,133.
12. Michale Behe, Darwin's Black Box(New York:Free Press, 1996).
13. For Behe's response to critics, see Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules," Philosophia Christi 3, no1(2001) 165-79
14.Entire script taken from "Who made God" by Ravi Zacharias.
kuronymphie_uke
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:40:08 +0000
Interesting combination.
Though, chiku, I have a problem with your definition of a god. Conventionally, it is used to refer to what you call a deity, making the two terms interchangeable.
God's existance cannot be proven because it is impossible to know whether or not there's a big conscious deity.
It seems to me that you're really just trying to get out of identifying yourself with a religion by claiming that it's impossible to know the nature of God, and God doesn't have to be conscious. Faith from the Christian perspective must be defined by belief in the existance of God, not in the nature of God, which is more or less unknown. Claiming that even atheists can believe in God gives that idea far less credibility, and, from the Christian standard, is arguably unacceptable.
I'm sticking with the "it isn't God if it isn't conscious" argument.
Though, chiku, I have a problem with your definition of a god. Conventionally, it is used to refer to what you call a deity, making the two terms interchangeable.
God's existance cannot be proven because it is impossible to know whether or not there's a big conscious deity.
It seems to me that you're really just trying to get out of identifying yourself with a religion by claiming that it's impossible to know the nature of God, and God doesn't have to be conscious. Faith from the Christian perspective must be defined by belief in the existance of God, not in the nature of God, which is more or less unknown. Claiming that even atheists can believe in God gives that idea far less credibility, and, from the Christian standard, is arguably unacceptable.
I'm sticking with the "it isn't God if it isn't conscious" argument.
` Murder
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:42:32 +0000
This entire thing is stupid, and you both know it. Why you're perpetuating it is beyond me.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
Lethal7
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:46:29 +0000
Murder Incorporated
This entire thing is stupid, and you both know it. Why you're perpetuating it is beyond me.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
King_seth
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:49:36 +0000
I wonder if she should just change the title to "the repeat thread"..It must have been done before.
` Murder
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:49:45 +0000
Lethal7
Murder Incorporated
This entire thing is stupid, and you both know it. Why you're perpetuating it is beyond me.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
If you'll recall, I did debate in the other one. I can understand that you enjoy it, but nothing you posted proves anything one way or the other with regards to a divinity, and thus is a waste of space beyond hooking people into your thread.
Lethal7
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 20:54:26 +0000
Murder Incorporated
Lethal7
Murder Incorporated
This entire thing is stupid, and you both know it. Why you're perpetuating it is beyond me.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
If you'll recall, I did debate in the other one. I can understand that you enjoy it, but nothing you posted proves anything one way or the other with regards to a divinity, and thus is a waste of space beyond hooking people into your thread.
~Octavia Sperati~
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:01:20 +0000
Does it matter? No.
If you believe in God you do and it doesn't matter to you if you are wrong or not and vica versa.
If you believe in God you do and it doesn't matter to you if you are wrong or not and vica versa.
` Murder
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:01:43 +0000
Lethal7
Murder Incorporated
Lethal7
Murder Incorporated
This entire thing is stupid, and you both know it. Why you're perpetuating it is beyond me.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
If you'll recall, I did debate in the other one. I can understand that you enjoy it, but nothing you posted proves anything one way or the other with regards to a divinity, and thus is a waste of space beyond hooking people into your thread.
No, we can't. There's no empirical evidence in favor of a divinity. Regardless, people will believe in the Christian god, or in the Hindu pantheon, or to the deities of Wiccan lore.
Just as we cannot prove a philosophy to be correct or incorrect, we cannot prove that any given religion or theological belief is correct or incorrect. Debate will rip apart the illogicallity of an arguement in favor of said philosophy or religous belief, but it doesn't prove the theory right or wrong.
*sigh* Look, debate all you want. Just know that you're not going to change anyones mind or prove anything. I'll join in if it piques my interest, and I won't say anything more on the subject.
Wishbone Redemption
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:02:21 +0000
1) A diety. 'God' instead of 'Goddess' denotes male, but sometimes neither genders.
2) Nope. That's what faith is for. Because of this, all religions hinging on faith (or, belief in something) are equally legitimate. You can't prove one is ultimately better or worse than the others, just that one works better for you personally.
3) No. It's valid as a spiritual suppliment to help a Christian understand their relationship with science, but there's no way it can be proven, so it doesn't work in science.
4) Nope. Again, that's why it's faith- belief in the unseen. If we could prove it, there would be no need to have faith, just eyes.
2) Nope. That's what faith is for. Because of this, all religions hinging on faith (or, belief in something) are equally legitimate. You can't prove one is ultimately better or worse than the others, just that one works better for you personally.
3) No. It's valid as a spiritual suppliment to help a Christian understand their relationship with science, but there's no way it can be proven, so it doesn't work in science.
4) Nope. Again, that's why it's faith- belief in the unseen. If we could prove it, there would be no need to have faith, just eyes.
` Murder
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:08:17 +0000
Wishbone Redemption
1) A diety. 'God' instead of 'Goddess' denotes male, but sometimes neither genders.
God with a capital denotes a supreme divinity, in the monotheisitic sense. In a pantheisist belief system, the dieties should properly be referenced as gods and goddesses, not as Gods and Goddesses.
Lethal7
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:08:54 +0000
Murder Incorporated
Lethal7
Murder Incorporated
Lethal7
Murder Incorporated
This entire thing is stupid, and you both know it. Why you're perpetuating it is beyond me.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
The existence of anything that cannot be measured empirically cannot be proven or disproven. This INCLUDES a God, by any means.
If you'll recall, I did debate in the other one. I can understand that you enjoy it, but nothing you posted proves anything one way or the other with regards to a divinity, and thus is a waste of space beyond hooking people into your thread.
No, we can't. There's no empirical evidence in favor of a divinity. Regardless, people will believe in the Christian god, or in the Hindu pantheon, or to the deities of Wiccan lore.
Just as we cannot prove a philosophy to be correct or incorrect, we cannot prove that any given religion or theological belief is correct or incorrect. Debate will rip apart the illogicallity of an arguement in favor of said philosophy or religous belief, but it doesn't prove the theory right or wrong.
*sigh* Look, debate all you want. Just know that you're not going to change anyones mind or prove anything. I'll join in if it piques my interest, and I won't say anything more on the subject.
Xin Circe
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 May 2006 21:09:17 +0000
1) the chirstian religion belives in one god, but so many other people belives in many or a diffrent. You ask a Chatholic, or CHistian and they say they can feel him in the heart so therefor he must be real right. What about the others they claim to be fake. Ask them what do they say, basicly the same thing.