Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...
- Thread starter Joe
- Start date
whose version of the Leprechaun are we talking about? I am not saying science knows anything about the Creator other than there may be evidence of him in the fine tunings or in the possible drive for life in the building blocks of life.
however, if God is outside of time... I am not sure "in advance" means anything.
however, if God is outside of time... I am not sure "in advance" means anything.
Who knows? Given enough time could a monkey sitting at a keyboard eventually type a word? A sentence? A paragraph? A book? A series of books? A series of books covering every single topic that man could ever conceive? Cause that's what you atheists trying to sell. That mindless randomness will eventually end up in perfection.
Seems either belief is quite a stretch, don't ya' think.
That's random chance, which doesn't exist imo. We are subject to ordered chance. So to continue with your analogy, the monkey is at a keyboard which corrects spelling, punctuation, and grammar, etc., as it types. So the odds that something readable will eventually emerge are much higher, given enough time. I use "something" deliberately, because the layout and content of even this universe could have been very different, without violating any of the current laws.
Perfection ??? Nobody's talking about perfection. There is no evidence of a god/gods/team of universe creators, mad creator scientist, unless of course you consider us being here and knowing we are here as evidence. If that's the case you can make up any wild story you want to explain our existence and call it possible. But we should deal in facts and as they are now there are no facts for a:god/gods/team of universe creators or a mad creator scientist.
I think science is telling the scientists there is evidence it was not random.
The odds explained by penrose here... rule out luck.
Penrose has even stated the multiverse of string theory with 10 to the 500 universe is not enough.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The odds explained by penrose here... rule out luck.
Penrose has even stated the multiverse of string theory with 10 to the 500 universe is not enough.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You're right, there aren't any facts to support a single Creator, just like there aren't any facts to support Ricters "magic keyboard", other than the fact that it all worked out, and you're stating, correctly so, that the fact that we're here isn't really evidence that we were created by some all knowing entity. There are no facts that randomness filtered through the magic keyboard is what happened, other than, here we are, so I guess that must be it.
Everybody is guessing. Some making better guesses than other for sure, but neither side can say with absolute certainty that their theory is the right one.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument
Now a similar problem afflicts the contemporary appeal to the multiverse to explain away fine-tuning. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universeâs low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar systemâs being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). (Penrose calls it âutter chicken feedâ by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horsesâ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of natureâs constants and quantitiesâ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.
All this has been said, of course, without asking whether the multiverse itself must not exhibit fine-tuning in order to exist. If it does, as some have argued, then it is a non-starter as an alternative to design.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument#ixzz2zvNfCvAm
note... this is where stu.. will attack the website instead of the logic or the science... it shall be funny.
Now a similar problem afflicts the contemporary appeal to the multiverse to explain away fine-tuning. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universeâs low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar systemâs being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). (Penrose calls it âutter chicken feedâ by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horsesâ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of natureâs constants and quantitiesâ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.
All this has been said, of course, without asking whether the multiverse itself must not exhibit fine-tuning in order to exist. If it does, as some have argued, then it is a non-starter as an alternative to design.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument#ixzz2zvNfCvAm
note... this is where stu.. will attack the website instead of the logic or the science... it shall be funny.