You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
Quote from stu:
- ".....an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design.
That is not the answer of modern science. "
Clear enough except to the delusional, who pretend Hawkins or Susskind have said otherwise.
"The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature..."
Clear enough except for zealous atheists to see that the universe we live in exhibits extreme fine tuning.
(Hawkings just wrote that, Susskind said we look spectacularly designed)
this is amazing... from the wall street journal excerpt on the first page of this thread.... by Hawking one of our best minds on the subject.
"
The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsââ¬âespecially carbonââ¬âcould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe.
Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements.
By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.
If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned..."
Remember all the clowns who made fun of the intelligent design theory?
"
The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsââ¬âespecially carbonââ¬âcould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe.
Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements.
By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.
If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.
The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned..."
Remember all the clowns who made fun of the intelligent design theory?
Quote from Optionpro007:
* BOOK EXCERPT
* SEPTEMBER 3, 2010
Why God Did Not Create the Universe
There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldââ¬âno gods required
By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW
It is somewhat ludicrous to assume you can either prove or disprove that God did not create the Universe, or that God exists or does not exist based on observation.
For example, if the monotheistic God described in the Abrahamic religions exists, even a brilliant man like Hawking compared to such a god would be like a carrot contemplating the truth of Einstein's theories. In a few places in the Jewish/Christian bible, it clearly states that that people cannot just find God on their own volition/choice (summary: they shall look and not see, they shall listen and not hear")
On the other hand, the God as described in various scriptural writings would be rather unprovable, unless God somehow decided to clearly reveal himself. Adherents of every religion prefer their own interpretation, and of course, think the others are at least partly uninformed.
Q.E.D. it takes an act of belief to think one way or the other.
does it take an act of belief to conclude santa claus does not exist?Quote from JoePaterno:
It is somewhat ludicrous to assume you can either prove or disprove that God did not create the Universe, or that God exists or does not exist based on observation.
For example, if the monotheistic God described in the Abrahamic religions exists, even a brilliant man like Hawking compared to such a god would be like a carrot contemplating the truth of Einstein's theories. In a few places in the Jewish/Christian bible, it clearly states that that people cannot just find God on their own volition/choice (summary: they shall look and not see, they shall listen and not hear")
On the other hand, the God as described in various scriptural writings would be rather unprovable, unless God somehow decided to clearly reveal himself. Adherents of every religion prefer their own interpretation, and of course, think the others are at least partly uninformed.
Q.E.D. it takes an act of belief to think one way or the other.
Quote from jem:
Well you got all "man of sciencey" and said scientists don't hope they conclude.
So I want to know which scientists have concluded there are multiple universes?
vs. which scientists have a hope there are 10 to the 500 other universes to correspond with M Theory projections or conjectures.
Do yourself a favor. Don't be such a jerk for once, go back and read what he actually said .
Quote from jem:
Well you got all "man of sciencey" and said scientists don't hope they conclude.
So I want to know which scientists have concluded there are multiple universes?
vs. which scientists have a hope there are 10 to the 500 other universes to correspond with M Theory projections or conjectures.
I didn't say scientists don't hope they conclude. I said atheists don't hope, they come to the best conclusion given the facts available.
You were stereotyping all atheists as hoping that the god theory is disproven. I disagree. I don't hope one way or the other, I simply see what I see (or don't see, in this case).
Quote from Free Thinker:
does it take an act of belief to conclude santa claus does not exist?
The concept of santa clause bringing gifts is rather easily unproven, to anyone who can count the number of presents purchased vs. the new ones that appeared overnight. It is rather tiring to see people wander into a discussion with a mindless post like yours.
Now try something worthy of a reply. Either:
-- effectively prove that the Universe HAS a designer
-- effectively prove that the Universe HAS NO a designer