Proof there is a God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by JBrentonK, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    I am sorry Birch, but you missed the point of the lecture.
    Instead of "one way" looking at something, Antonsen recommends looking at things from many different perspectives. That is what generates understanding.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,016
    There can be no proof until some god comes out of hiding & shows itself.

    <>
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    Yes, to infer a god from the way nature functions, shows a lack of scientific objectivity.

    There are no divine miracles, just natural physical functions, some with good outcomes, some with terrible consequences.
    But to a person who is ignorant of the actual properties of the universe, I can well imagine that the observer believes these events are caused by a divine imperative.

    In a way that is true, most of the universal functions are invisible and conducive to the conclusion there is an "unseen" guiding hand. It's just that this guiding hand is caused by the mathematically consistent nature of recurring patterns in nature, and not by an intentional sentience..
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,016
    That is part of why I say that. Another part is that there could be beings with natural and/or tech power such that theists could not distinguish them from their gods. Even IF some of their fables are basicly true, that would be more plausible than actual gods.

    <>
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    Panspermia is a logical hypothesis. Here on earth we can find extremophiles, which could easily withstand space travel.
    OTOH, the conditions on earth were once very similar to other "inhospitable" planets and might have given rise to extremophiles, which, due to their incredible ability to live in the most inhospitable environments never needed to adaptively evolve.
     
  9. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,016
    Earth is inhospitable. Often in science fiction, people are looking for an Earth like planet. IF we ever get to other solar systems, I hope we can find a better planet.

    <>
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    Earth is inhospitable? A perfectly balanced system providing all ingredients for giving rise to billions of living organisms? I call that very hospitable. Hence the term Cinderella planet.

    But that does not rule out other life forms evolving under "different" conditions. As long as there is an abundance of chemical elements, an abundance of surface area, and an abundance of time, the probability of an emergent form of life might well be very high.

    Robert Hazen lays out the probabilistic appearance of Life. (start at 25:15)
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
  11. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,016
    It is not perfectly balanced at all. It is a great wonder humanity has survived this long without help.

    <>
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    What do you think is lacking, considering the enormous variety of life the earth and the evolution of chemical interactions has formed?

    Earth is in a stable orbit, its axis orientation insures a range of regular climate changes, but slightly different each time, and an abundance of chemicals able to form into bio-chemicals, when conditions are just right at a given moment. Apparently this ideal combination happened some 10 billion years ago, and the rest is history.

    Consider, if the earth's conditions were not variable and the prevailing condition did not allow for the formation of bio-chemicals, then the probability of life becomes very small.

    It is the very dynamic nature of earth's atmosphere, which allowed for that one event which started the evolutionary chain.

    As Hazen explains, all the ingredients for life or its chemical building block are present on earth, and given the enormous surface area and time scales, it is just a matter of time before a chemical reaction results in a self-duplicating string of bio-molecules, a probability which becomes larger as time passes.

    The underlying ability for certain chemicals to form self-replicating bio-molecules has been proven on earth. Evolution did the rest.

    But as we can see from life around Black Smokers, some of these chemical reactions can occur in what seems to us an extremely inhospitable environment which would be lethal to all other earth species, but yet manage to develop a rich local biological variety of living organisms, alien to the rest of all other life on earth.

    A Black Smoker planet, could not give rise to human life, but human life is just one form. And the evidence suggests that given the earth's resources and behaviors, there existed a high probability of the evolution of surface and shallow water life forms.

    We and the millions of other species (some now extinct through natural selection) are the evidence that earth is indeed a Cinderella planet, as compared to Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc.

    No doubt there must be very similar planets throughout the universe. And given similar (very ordinary) chemistry and varying range of moderate temperatures, I have no doubt that life exists elsewhere in the universe. It just won't be human, but not necessarily unintelligent.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,930
    My hope is that it is intelligent enough not to have a god

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,016
    No Earth human knows the odds of life appearing.
    I am not comparing Earth to Mars or Jupiter. I am comparing it to how bad some planets probably are & how good some planets might be somewhere out there. I am comparing Earth to what would be ideal for humans & some other species.
    99% of all once existing species on Earth are now extinct. Humans probably would not exist except for chance circumstances which were disastrous for other species. Most of the planet is not well suited for human habitation. Most animals have limited areas where they can survive. Where they do live, most are in competition with other animals to survive. Through most of known history, humanity has been plagued by many types of natural disasters & serious health problems. Only recently have many people lived past 55. Until recently, nearly as many babies died at birth as those who lived to be 9 & dying in childbirth was 1 of the most common deaths for women.
    Until recently, the everlasting struggle to live & survive was hell for the vast majority of humans & it yet is for some. It is no wonder so many grabbed onto fantasy of a better life somewhere sometime & held on like a life preserver.
    I could go on & on with this.
    I have no way to know for certain now but IF humanity gets to other solar systems, I hope very much they find at least 1 planet at least 30 times as good as Earth.
    If I could design & build a planet for intelligent & other life, I think it would be 300 times as good as Earth.
    The conditions of the planet & humans & other life here is 1 of the big arguments against intelligent design.

    <>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2017
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,324
    I totally agree on that. But they have it backwards and that is understandable if the earth was 6000 years old. But it is 4.7 billion years old and that makes it mathematically more probable that life would occur. We see life as sacred, and it would be if we were the only living species in the universe. But suppose some forms of life evolve naturally and is just another expression of the inherent potential of this universe.

    Let's put it simply, if the earth had not had such a violent past, the created chemicals and dynamic conditions might never have existed for life to emerge.

    This is the atheist argument; if life is a probabilistic occurrence, the larger and more diverse the chemical interactions, the greater the probability for "something" to happen that eventually gave rise to the incredible variety of extant life on this planet. As you noted, natural selection and a few global disasters have tested the ability of some life to survive. And from this testing, at least one organism managed to survive and evolve in even a very hostile environments. Where did Tardigrades (Water Bears) and Extremophiles come from? They can survive years of draught, temperatures from 400c to -400c

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://www.sciencealert.com/new-stu...ater-bears-have-become-so-damn-indestructible

    If you saw the Hazen clip, you know how many chemical reactions he estimated to have occurred during the earth's lifetime: 4 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions! All we need is just one chemical interaction to produce a bio-molecule. He demonstrated how easy it is to produce a round cell from goo. So apparently that's a very natural mathematical function, which is obvious in all the spherical objects in the universe. Now add an internal chemical reaction that causes it to split in half and the process of evolution has begun. This is not rare, it is common. No miracles, just chemicals, mathematical functions, and time. If life occurred on this ordinary planet, the universe must be teeming with life!

    Moreover, our bodies are mostly made up from the most abundant chemicals in the universe. Nothing special about human bio-chemistry, except for the neural network of our brains.

    As to the emergence of homo sapiens from the hominid family, IMO, this occurred when two separate chromosomes fused into a single larger chromosome. Humans are the only hominid with 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas all other hominids have 24 pairs.

    To me that suggests that this mutation is connected with the evolution of man. Of all our 98 % common chromosomes, there is only one that clearly sets us apart from other hominids.
    http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

    My lay hypothesis is that this fusion had something to do with neural brain growth and gave humans the ability for greater abstract thinking, a very useful asset in observing, analyzing, and taking preventive action.

    Most hominids have just as efficient (or greater) observational powers from shared senses, but humans have the ability to reflect on these observations at a much deeper level due to our increased brain size and neural growth patterns, which might well be responsible for early migration in search of the ideal habitat (paradise).
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  16. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    142
    I can count discarded toenails on the carpet in front of me.
    I can see 5, which happens to be the number of children my parents produced.
    I doubt there is any causal relationship, but a sage might see some deep meaning.
    Are these the kind of properties you mean?
    And why is it a problem?
     
  17. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    142
    Which can be reduced to "Mathematics is mathematics".

    It is obviously a useful tool, especially when used for situations that cannot be tested easily, such as landing on the Moon.
    But it is only a tool. It's not worthy of worship.

    Spanners, are more useful than mathematics.
    You can't build a space ship without spanners, so the UFO construction crews have spanners.
    Therefore they have hands to hold the spanners.
    And they have to see what they are doing and think about it.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,937
    Yes, when Write4U starts talking about "functions" you can bet he is speaking ex ano.
     
    Ted Grant II likes this.
  19. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    142
    Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, usually after due consideration.
    One could argue that every creature in the universe is an atheist at birth.
    But the label "atheist" is usually used for creatures old enough and intelligent enough to consider the god hypothesis and are not convinced that theists have met their burden of proof.
    It's exactly the same as a lack of belief in fairies, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, except, in this case, there is no label (check?).
    Atheists don't need an argument. It's not their job.
     
  20. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    142
    Does one need intelligence to design "arguments against intelligent design" or would that be self-defeating ?
     
  21. Ted Grant II Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    142
    Quite right. Mathematics can be likened to a very complicated game (like chess). There are imaginary objects (numbers, pawns etc) and a set of rules and operations.
    The objects are represented by something tangible (symbols, signs, wooden pieces etc) and the operations are used to manipulate the objects according to the rules.
    There are also challenging objectives. What is 2(x+3) if x=0, take the opponent's queen etc.

    In the same way that chess may be considered a model of a war, mathematics can be considered (sometimes) as a model of the behavior of real objects in the world.
    Sometimes the predictions and theorems of mathematics are useful in the real world, but lots of mathematics is entirely unreal, but simply fun.

    The universe does not use mathematics. We do.
     
  22. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,930
    One of the reasons

    as I understand the argument FOR a intelligent designer

    is that life is FAR to complicated to happen by chance

    It appears to have escaped from the proponents that a Intelligent Designer would be EXTRA FAR to complicated to just happen

    And so down the rabbit hole of reduction to absurdity we go

    Or should that be expansion into absurdity as the Intelligent Designer gets larger and more complicated along the line

    THAT does not sound intelligent to me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,511
    yeah, and atheists tend to think math is an answer to everything and it isn't. it's a tool, not an answer. next!

    even this is supposition. once that sentience activates, the universe is showing you it's other face.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2017

Share This Page