how can we best explain our existence ?

[Sternwallow]

GLY
"It needs a little more than just a asteroid, to create a life permitting planet."
Certainly it does, but there would not have been human life on this planet had that collision not happened. Are you claiming that a random asteroid impact was part of the grand design of the universe just so we would develop from the decimated life-forms that survived it?

You are saying that, at the beginning of the universe events were set in motion so that 13 Billion years later they would cause that exact asteroid at that velocity in that trajectory at exactly that time, to construct humanity. If true, your creator certainly uses very blunt tools to accomplish his ends. Forget about tweaking DNA, he is a regular world-buster. Happily, it is untrue because the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle shows that no such pattern could survive so long without significant loss of information. You are effectively talking about sinking the 12-ball in the near-right-corner after about 10 Billion Billion sequential collisions after the initial cue stroke.

[Sternwallow]

Davin wrote

Because man created the elegant equations, dumb ass.

Thank you Davin, that is a much better answer than I was about to give.

[Sternwallow]

GLY, you are beginning to show signs of deliberate density.
"so[sic] that means, matter/energy can "choose" and the[sic] define the right constants needed to create life ? if[sic] its not by choice, its by what[sic] ? luck ? chance ? what else ?"
Life is no more the goal of the universe than a perfect Bridge hand is a goal of the shuffle. Matter/energy obviously do not choose anything, so stop being silly about this.

Do you really think that a crystal grows in a regular pattern because the atoms choose where to plop their lazy bodies or do you really think that God sits around all day peering at every crystal that is growing and nudging each little atom into its preassigned place or, lastly, do you think that atoms, pushed and pulled by natural and unthinking physical (as opposed to spiritual) forces, naturally fall into lines and sheets and volumes of regular lattice locations?

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

Gly, this statement is wrong:
"BS. The very own[sic] cosmological constants proves you wrong. Even the formation of atoms was made through mindblowing precision. "
The limitations of the human mind are not at issue here.
Even the arrangement of electrons around a nucleus is not precise, it is a cloud of probabilities within which an electron can be in all possible locations simultaneously. Atoms are not built on an assembly line by skilled craftsmen working from a big blueprint taped to the wall with all the required dimensions and tolerances written out. They are constructed and deconstructed billions of times in an incredibly hot hailstorm of component particles, under unimaginable pressures and temperatures.

So, no, atoms are not "made through mindblowing precision". They are made the way they are and we discover precision after the fact when we measure them. When we accumulate enough similar measurements (and none contrary), we generalize that parameter to apply universally and we marvel at the apparent but not actual design we imagine.

how are you so sure its apparent, but not actual design ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...y-one-t191.htm

A team of Austrian, German, and Hungarian astrophysicists has recently added evidence to the case for divine design, sweeping aside a recent challenge to the design argument I present in The Creator and the Cosmos.1 Their research focused on two of the four fundamental forces of physics: 1) electromagnetism, which governs the degree to which atomic nuclei hold on to their electrons, and 2) the strong nuclear force, which governs the degree to which protons and neutrons stick together in the nuclei of atoms.

The teams strategy was to construct mathematical models of red giant stars, altering (slightly) the values for the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force constants. They discovered that even tiny increases or decreases cause problems. The adjusted red giants would produce too little carbon, too little oxygen, or too little of both oxygen and carbon for any kind of physical life to be possible anywhere in the universe. Specifically, they determined that if the value of the coupling constant for electromagnetism were four percent smaller or larger than what we observe, life would be impossible. In the case of the coupling constant for the strong nuclear force, if it were 0.5 percent smaller or larger, life would be impossible.

Considering the fine-tuning of the weak nuclear force for both the rate of radioactive decay as well as the precise value required to allow supernova explosions, it seems conservative to say that it was one chance out of 100 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.

gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.

[b]It is therefore possible to imagine whole different kinds of universes with different constants. For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form. Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight.

[Sternwallow]

GLY, now you are just getting too silly!
"ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of ‘pure’ oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01"

Most geologists agree that Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-free until 2.4 billion years ago. It was life flourishing in that toxic (to us) atmosphere that produced the Oxygen you claim is an absolute requirement for life.

Concerning WATER, there is an abundance of water in comets and we are sure of huge deposits of water on both the Moon and Mars. Europa is covered with water even more so than Earth and it doesn't need to be in the Goldilocks Zone because it has a different heat source than the Sun.

You are straining much too hard to squeeze some sort of God out of all this biology, physics and chemistry and astronomy. Why not just accept that God's domain is strictly spiritual, a domain that science does not invade, and leave physical reality alone?

I realize it would mean jettisoning those parts of religion that trespass on scientific issues, but, believe me, religion is much better off if it does not make claims that can be checked and refuted. Pi is not 3 and bats are not birds and Christianity would be healthier if it did not say they were.

[Sternwallow]

GLY, get a grip.
"Based on what scientific evidence do you believe multiverses exist ?"
I do not believe that multiple universes exist, only that, if they did, they would/could have different values for the various numbers you like to call constants and that other universes would exist if there could be different values for those constants.

At the moment, I happen to think there is some likelihood that there are other universes. Whether I am right or wrong, they will be unable to communicate with each other so there will be no way to know.

Some have speculated that there is only one way that any universe can form, that changing any constant by any amount is as invalid as dividing by zero. It is more fun and better mental stimulation to take the multi-verse as the operative unprovable hypothesis.

If the values of the constants were incorrect to form a full-blown universe, there would still be the singularity so it is not quite correct to say there would be no universe, after all, our universe was once a singularity.

[Sternwallow]

Godlovesyou wrote

Sorry for my bad english, i just made a 3 month english course 20 years ago.

No problem. Now that I know, I will gladly do the extra work to get your meaning, work I would not do if you were just lazy or deliberately ignorant.

So please explain, why you think comparing bananas with pine apple makes sense to you.

Growing bananas (the atheists nightmare) and growing pine apples are quite properly comparable in several dimensions. We can compare their average masses, their sugar content, the amount of rain and sun and fertilizer they need for how many days. So I am sure that whatever effort or power is needed to bring a huge, energy-laden subatomic particle into existence has to be greater than bringing virtually nothing with no mass and no extent into existence.

I cannot answer you, unless you explain to me, what exactly a " a relatively huge and energy-filled subatomic particle " is. How huge is it, btw ?

Whatever size it is, the particle is huge compared to zero size and however much energy it contains (its mass), it has a lot more energy than zero.

[Demigod79]

Godlovesyou wrote

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist. For reasons that go back to the early beginning of the solar system, the earth is the only planet known with ANY significant amount of water [Mars had surface water in the past, and still has water locked into ice caps. Aside from that there is a lot of water in comets (some scientists estimate that collisions with comets may have delivered most of the water to earth), as well as in the outer planets, kuiper belt, and even in some moons.]. Of the planets of our solar system only earth meets that requirement. Estimated probability - .1

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere. Estimated probability - .01 [The mixture of gases in the atmosphere has varied over earth's lifetime. For most of earth's history oxygen was not present and the percentage of other gases varied greatly from today. The mixture of gases today is nothing special.]

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life [This is plain wrong. For most of earth's history life has existed without oxygen. Oxygen is crucial to current oxygen-breathing life (duh), but it is not crucial for life in general.]. Mars falls far short in that respect, and so does Venus. The amount of ‘pure’ oxygen in the atmosphere is dependent on many things, like volcanism, thermal activity in the core of the planet, and the amount of metal in the crust. Too much metal would absorb the oxygen in the air in the form of rust and oxidation. Estimated probability - .01

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all. Estimated probability - .3 [Life was present on the earth very soon after its formation. Even a sun that burned out in a couple of billion years could support life. Also, life can exist independent of the sun as well, as the myriad of creatures found around oceanic thermal vents makes clear.]

I hope you realize that in about 4-5 billion years or so the sun will blow up, making this "fine-tuned" solar system inhospitable to any life. Not that we'll be likely to see it do so since during its red giant phase it'll kill off all life on earth. Of course it's not likely that we'll be around for that either, since the earth will probably be hit with another giant space rock some time in the future and wipe out most of the life on earth (including us if we're still a terrestrial species at that time). Aside from that there are the many other space disasters that could potentially put an end to life on earth (e.g., a gamma ray burst).

At this particular point in time the earth is a nice place to be but this will not always be the case. The fact of the matter is that the universe is an incredibly hostile place for life. No intelligent designer wishing to create a life-bearing universe would design it in such a way (just like no intelligent designer would make the Vagus nerve in the Giraffe loop down into its chest). If this universe is the best that an intelligent designer could do to create a life-bearing world then I'm not impressed (perhaps "intelligent" is not the proper word here).

[Sternwallow]

Godlovesyou wrote

how exactly is it proven ?

I am sorry. I am usually more careful not to use the word "proven" when referring to science because, after all, proofs only belong in mathematics. Science is always tentative, at the mercy of any new information.
The uniformity of the CBR is observational evidence of the random state through which the universe passed during its early development and which would have erased any preset pattern that a designer might have impressed on the singularity to guide the development of the universe to any goal, including humanity.

A person can design a god-awful long sequence of causal elements to wind up with a desired final state. One might, for instance, design a 10,000 domino pattern that would "run" for many minutes. If you give a huge box of dominoes and the plan to someone, presumably they can set up the whole thing as you want. If, however, before he can get to work setting out dominoes, the design is run through a shredder (randomizing stage), the layout he produces may run very well but it won't be the one you wanted and it won't end with the goal you had in mind.

You may ask, why couldn't God simply control the randomness to protect the pattern or even to ignore any initial pattern and directly produce the needed pattern. The answer I have is that (if God existed) He certainly could have done either of those two. Our observation, however, discovers that He, for whatever reason, didn't do that. Any design or plan was definitely erased near the beginning of universal development.

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

If the values of the constants were incorrect to form a full-blown universe, there would still be the singularity so it is not quite correct to say there would be no universe, after all, our universe was once a singularity.

do you know what a singularity actually means ?

[Godlovesyou]

Sternwallow wrote

You are straining much too hard to squeeze some sort of God out of all this biology, physics and chemistry and astronomy. .

oh sure. It all happened by chance. Feel free to believe this.....

[Irreligious]

Godlovesyou wrote

oh sure. It all happened by chance. Feel free to believe this.....

And you feel free to believe that an invisible man in the sky was responsible.

[Godlovesyou]

Irreligious wrote

And you feel free to believe that an invisible man in the sky was responsible.

Sure. Better than nothing

[Kate]

That is the most pathetic thing I've heard in a very long time.

[Irreligious]

Godlovesyou wrote

Sure. Better than nothing

Sternwallow has gone out of his way to correct your mischaracterization of his position. Obviously, it was a waste of his time, since you are heavily invested in magical thinking.

By your reckoning, either the universe blinked itself into existence or an invisible magic man blinked it into existence. Either way, it demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking on this topic.