Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe

[jem]

Quote from Kassz007:

Have you read the Grand Design?

No but I read this excerpt on the front page of this thread.

....


It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.

The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves.

The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain.
[W3Feature1] Stephen Youll


....

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from jem:

No but I read this excerpt on the front page of this thread.

....


It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the "weak" anthropic principle.

The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves.

The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain.
[W3Feature1] Stephen Youll


....

To be fair, I would refrain from commenting on Hawking's conclusions until you read the book. In reality we don't know Hawking's conclusions until we read the book. An excerpt printed on some media website is highly succeptible to be taken out of context, wouldn't you agree?

 

[jem]

Quote from Kassz007:

To be fair, I would refrain from commenting on Hawking's conclusions until you read the book. In reality we don't know Hawking's conclusions until we read the book. An excerpt printed on some media website is highly succeptible to be taken out of context, wouldn't you agree?

Yes and no.

There has been enough released about the book to know that he is relying on M Theory to support the multiverse idea.

I am sure there will be other things which will be interesting... but if you go on the net... you can see video's of other physicists talking about the book.

You can also read excerpts like the one on this thread.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

Your belief was the old fallback. the weak anthropic theory.

However, I believe you underestimate what hawking and other physicists are saying about the appearance of design.

They are saying there is no way our universe got here by chance or random events.... no possible way... unless you have almost infinite universes or a new unified universe theory is discovered.

I think we probably will "have" infinite universes, since they will be basically products of our instrumentation, as is matter.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from jem:

Yes and no.

There has been enough released about the book to know that he is relying on M Theory to support the multiverse idea.

I am sure there will be other things which will be interesting... but if you go on the net... you can see video's of other physicists talking about the book.

You can also read excerpts like the one on this thread.

Maybe so, but perhaps there will be new ideas in the book different from what you already know about M Theory. I am just saying, before we comment definitively on Hawking's conclusions, I think we should understand what those conclusions are as opposed to speculating based on some things read on the internet. The things we are reading about the book right now could be taken completely out of context for all we know.

 

[Ricter]

So, in physicists' view, does the extreme improbability of this universe mean that there must be a near infinity of other universes, or only mean that there must be a possibility of a near infinity of other universes?

 

[Trader666]

Nonsense. Of course you and the people you cited deny the complexity of the universe and our limited knowledge. Your posts, the teapot analogy and the "everything from nothing" theory prove it. Blindly accepting what philosophy and science "gods" say -- whether it makes sense or not -- doesn't make you enlightened either, in fact just the opposite. At least I gave logical reasons for rejecting the teapot and "everything from nothing" which you still haven't disputed except to say that Russell and Hawking are Russell and Hawking.

Quote from Gayfly1:

No one denies the complexity of the world and universe around us and our limited knowledge of it. But to deny that which our more intelligent minds have scrabbled together over time would bring us back that much further. So I am not inclined to dismiss what we do have, such as it is, because it is less than perfect.

You still haven't explained why "everything from nothing" is more plausible than a creator. And I haven't "truncated my judgment," "suspended reason" or "summarily dismissed" anything... YOU HAVE as I pointed out above. As for the creator's origin, I haven't even addressed it yet... that was your second question which I said I'd answer after you explained why "everything from nothing" is more plausible than a creator. Try to keep up.

Quote from Gayfly1:

As for the "everything from nothing" being more or less plausible than a creator, you still have not addressed the origin of this creator. You are truncating your judgment and suspending reason with a broad brush by summarily dismissing the question of a creator's origin, and yet you delve argumentatively, if not necessarily knowledgeably, into the minutia of that which you characterize "everything from nothing." Not very "fair and balanced," is it? It appears that you are approaching this science with an agenda.

 

[Trader666]

I'll try to pick up a copy this weekend. Reviews on Amazon aren't very good (even from atheists), unlike those for his other books.

Quote from Kassz007:

Maybe so, but perhaps there will be new ideas in the book different from what you already know about M Theory. I am just saying, before we comment definitively on Hawking's conclusions, I think we should understand what those conclusions are as opposed to speculating based on some things read on the internet. The things we are reading about the book right now could be taken completely out of context for all we know.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

So, in physicists' view, does the extreme improbability of this universe mean that there must be a near infinity of other universes, or only mean that there must be a possibility of a near infinity of other universes?

good question....

if you read what susskind wrote... he felt it was appropriate to discuss the idea when another string theorist named polchinski calculated there were 10 to the 500 possible ways the universe could have unfolded. he apparently calls the sum of all those universes the "landscape" and within the landscape could be those other universes or environments.

But, there is no proof of other universes. They are theoretical for now.

 

[JoePaterno]

Quote from Free Thinker:

the concept of a loving god is rather easily unproven by comparing the human suffering with the claim of a caring all powerful deity.

Caring King A rules over a country with no suffering. Caring King B rules over a country with some suffering. Caring King C rules over a country that is poor and with much suffering. Which king does not exist?

A loving god is unproven due to suffering? Ever heard of free will? And how in the world do you have the authority to decide how a god should or should not act???????

Your examples are rather easily dismissed. In fact, your free thinking is unhinged from logic, intelligence and wisdom. Other than that, you are fine.

it gets rather tiring to see people using lack of evidence for something as evidence that something supernatural exists to bolster their superstitious beliefs.

Again, if you READ the post, you would already understand that I said you cannot disprove or prove the existence of God. Why you assume I supported one side (as well as your disjointed english) is inexplicable.

But I better consign you to the IGNORE scrap pile now. It is tiring responding to "FreeThinker" who cannot read and cannot think