frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





i beleive god fined tuned the solor system. tell me why i am wrong

Debate Information

this article says this


Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

my conclusion

 god measured the sun and moon when placing it and as a result of that when you look at it from earth they come out to be the same exact size.

god measured it and placed the sun and moon in the perfect spot so that the sun and moon would be the same size from the viewpoint of earth making solar eclipses possible


god measured everything out perfectly. gods measuring the solar system and placing everything perfect is like how the Egyptians measured out the pyramids and perfectly aligned them with the stars

The Great Pyramids of Giza and Stonehenge seem to be aligned with precision to cardinal points or the positions where the moon, sun or stars


A book i was reading at 11  a few nights ago ." The book of nature" said something that reminded me on how perfectly aligned are solar system is . The book of nature is a book that was written in the 18 century by a  fellow named John Mason.
the book is in the public domain because it is so old. but it says this on page 50. I have not read far so i do not know were he was going with this.


part of page 50


the philosopher beholding now,as the prophet beheld formerly,that the almighty architect has literally
adjusted everything by weight and measured the waters meted out the heavens accurately comprehended the dust of the earth, "weighed he mountains in scales and the hills in a balance




It is basically saying that god took into account stuff like the weight on the leaf and he weight it just enough so it can float around.


It seems he does not claim this anymore because he says "beheld formerly". but this is exactly what god did with the solar system. he literally adjusted it and measured it till everything was in the perfect spot with no flaws. the sun is in the perfect spot if it was  closer or farther  away we would either freeze to death or burn to death. god measured it out. Plus you need to bring into account that the sun is coordinated with the moon. It being this perfect and being created by nothing. Is like if i won the lottery ten billion times. so it is impossible
for nothing to created life.




in the article called


The perfect balance of the solar system




It talks about how perfectly aligned the solar system is.






The sun and moon are perfectly synced. The sun is not to hot or to cold. god measured it till the sun and moon were in the perfect spots. everything is perfectly synced. the article talks about how even the planets could not have formed over a long time but had to be created rapidly


in the article
It so happens our sun provides the perfect conditions. It’s not too small (i.e., too dim or too cool) or too big (producing unfortunate charbroiled results from simply being too hot). Compared to the intense and violent activity seen on other stars, our sun is remarkably even-tempered and well-mannered—it doesn’t flare or pulse like other stars. When solar flares do occur, they are not so violent as to vaporize our oceans…or worse



On the local level, our moon is equally amazing, leading two secular authors to ask, “Who built the Moon?” Knight and Butler state, “The Moon is 400 times smaller than the star at the center of our solar system, yet it is also just 1/400th of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.” Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible. The authors also say, “By some absolutely incomprehensible quirk of nature, the Moon also manages to precisely imitate the perceived annual movements of the Sun each month.
Wow so the sun is something billion miles away and the moon is something million miles away. But if we look at it from earth they come out to be  the same size. the sun is bigger then the moon but because god measured both so when your gazing into the sky from earth . it seems to be the same size.
Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

. god measured it out perfectly so that from the viewpoint of earth the sun and moon are the same size

Planets Created Rapidly


But even if our neighboring planets somehow formed quickly from accumulating space dust, recently discovered exoplanets (extrasolar planets) have changed secular solar system formation theory.
there scratching there heads at what could have done this.


I will let you in on a secret it was god. They try to claim a super star did it.


There are many factors that would make a star system too hostile for life to even get started, let alone survive for any period long enough to evolve. So what sort of star provides the perfect conditions for a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe?


They are talking about that space should be hostile if nothing created life. So they ask themselves why is it perfectly balanced this should not be the case if nothing created life and they are correct. Nothing did not create life but God did. that's is why it is perfectly balanced not a super star


It talks about how perfectly synced the sun and moon are along with the stars. The chances of the solar system coming from nothing is if i won the lottery one trillion zillion times.  Those odds are impossible thus it must be god who created life. God would have fined tuned everything . a bunch of nothing would not have.

this is the link to the book of nature





God created the moon round and the sun round.






God created the sun round to go with the round moon.




This is like if i got a heart shaped chair to go with a heart shaped table.




Or if i get a casaba melon to go with the red water melon.


Or if i have red guppy fish so i get a red molly fish to go with it.

god created the earth round to go with the round planets




what are the chances that the moon the sun the earth other planets would all be almost perfect circles


god created them  all round so they would go together and it would be weird if they all look all deformed




if life was created by nothing these would look like this


nothing can not make something so perfect










PlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    Your argument is totally fallacious and in this particular case your fallacy is called the lottery fallacy , suppose you buy one lottery ticket and there are 20 million lottery tickets bought by others yet you win , do you then assume some god intervened on your behalf to make sure you won? If not why not? 
    AlexOlandZombieguy1987
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    "what are the chances that the moon the sun the earth other planets would all be almost perfect circles"

     This single line proves that you have no understanding of physics. So I think it is pretty normal for your understanding of the universe to be something like that. My suggestion is that you should start to learn about these things. Instead of presenting them as "proofs", ask questions about them. I think a lot of people will be more tolerant of someone who just does not know and wants to learn. 

     Or... you might just be trolling. 
    Dee
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    There are relatively easily accessible computer simulations out there where you can set up a completely chaotic environment in a large volume of space, let it evolve naturally for a few billion years - and you will receive a picture of the galaxy and the solar systems in it that is strikingly similar to what we observe around us.

    Nothing is fine-tuned, it is just a product of over 10 billion years of evolution: things come to a relative equilibrium eventually. The near-circular planetary orbits, for example, are a natural outcome of the evolution of a multi-body system, and it could not be any different, unless some unexpected events were involved.

    Finally, you see these things as "perfect" because humans naturally evolved in a way allowing them to best exploit the fruits of nature - so for us, indeed, many things in the nature are close to perfect. Only they are perfect not because someone made them so, but because we evolved in a way that naturally made us perceive them as perfect.
    Objectively speaking, there is nothing "perfect" in a near-circular planetary orbit. Even more so, the concept of a "circle" is our invention. Nature does not care about "circles", it is just what it is.
    AlexOlandZombieguy1987ZeusAres42Factfinder
  • crossedcrossed 58 Pts   -  
    I don't think you are getting the gravity of this one argument.


    Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

    my conclusion

     god measured the sun and moon when placing it and as a result of that when you look at it from earth they come out to be the same exact size.



    God literally measured out the sun and moon so that they would appear from the earth sky to be exactly the same size. making stuff like solar eclipses possible. god placed the sun a couple billion miles away from the earth and the moon something million miles and measured out how far he would need to place them so they would come to be the exactly the same size from earth viewpoint.

    a precise solar eclipse is when the sun perfectly covers the moon

    this is an example to help you try to see sort of measurements god had to have used. we are doing math

    I am standing 20 feet away from a banana and an apple. The banana is 8 inch long and the apple is 5 inches long. The banana appears to be 10 cm long from where i am standing and the apple appears to be 8 cm long from where i am standing. I want both the banana and apple to appear to be exactly 5 cm from where i am standing.


    So i bring the banana and apple 1 foot forward and now the banana and apple are 19 feet away.  The banana appears to be 9 cm long and the apple appears to be 7 cm  long. I want them both to be exactly 5 cm long so i bring the apple and banana up another foot. Now the banana and apple are 18 feet away and the banana is 8 cm long  and the apple is 6 cm long. that is still not 5 cm.  So i bring them both up 1 foot up and now the banana and apple are 17 feet away and the banana is 7 cm long and the apple is 5 cm. 5 cm is the size i wanted them both to be. So i keep the apple at 17 feet away. Which from my viewpoint  is exactly 5 cm long. The banana has a way to go so i bring the banana up 2 feet  the banana is now 15 feet away and is 5 cm long and is the exact size i wanted it to be.

    In this example I measured the banana and apple so that they would  both appear to be an exact 5cm from where i was standing. The banana is 8 inch long and 15 feet away. But were i am standing is appears to be 5 cm. the apple is 5 inches long and is 17 feet away and from my point of view is 5 cm long.


    I measured the banana and apple and placed them so they would be the exact same size from my viewpoint



    God measured the Sun and Moon so they would both appear to be the exact same size from the viewpoint earth. He would have had to use same measuring technique i used but without the trial and error.

    God placed the sun something billion miles away and from the viewpoint of earth appears to be 500. Note not real numbers


    god placed the moon something million miles away and from the viewpoint of earth comes out to be 500. Again not real numbers

    he put it in the perfect spot.

    Which makes the sun and moon the same size which makes it possible for one to completely cover the other with no flaws. There not to much sun or to little sun is completely folds over it perfectly. The reason why the sun covers the moon completely is because from earth there the same size.


    God would have had to solve a math problem


    i can word it just like my old math home work questions


    word problem not real numbers

    God want the sun and moon to appear to be 10 feet from the viewpoint of earth.  The sun is 1244445 feet long and the moon is 14355 feet long. How far away would god have to place the sun and moon away from the earth in order for both of them to appear exactly 10 feet from the viewpoint of earth.


    answer


    God would have to set the sun something billion miles. in order for the sun to appear to be 10 feet in size from the viewpoint of earth

    god would have to set the moon something million miles in order for it to appear to be ten feet from the viewpoint of the earth



    the sun completely covers the moon in a solar eclipse with not to much or to little. which means there the exact same size.




    dee said
    Your argument is totally fallacious and in this particular case your fallacy is called the lottery fallacy , suppose you buy one lottery ticket and there are 20 million lottery tickets bought by others yet you win , do you then assume some god intervened on your behalf to make sure you won? If not why not? 
    What i am saying that it is impossible for life to come out of nothing. Even if i won 1 time in my example, i said is like if i won the lottery a zillion trillion times. and ya if i won the lottery i would be praising god. if i won the lottery one zillion times then i have sold my soul to the devil. i am not going to win a zillion times the chance of that happening is zero because there is not a zillion lottery's.





    "what are the chances that the moon the sun the earth other planets would all be almost perfect circles"

     This single line proves that you have no understanding of physics. So I think it is pretty normal for your understanding of the universe to be something like that. My suggestion is that you should start to learn about these things. Instead of presenting them as "proofs", ask questions about them. I think a lot of people will be more tolerant of someone who just does not know and wants to learn. 

     Or... you might just be trolling. 


    i said almost perfect circles because i have an understanding of physics. if i did not know anything i would say perfect circles because just look at a picture of them. THEY ARE CIRCLES.



    may Cesar
    There are relatively easily accessible computer simulations out there where you can set up a completely chaotic environment in a large volume of space, let it evolve naturally for a few billion years - and you will receive a picture of the galaxy and the solar systems in it that is strikingly similar to what we observe around us.

    Nothing is fine-tuned, it is just a product of over 10 billion years of evolution: things come to a relative equilibrium eventually. The near-circular planetary orbits, for example, are a natural outcome of the evolution of a multi-body system, and it could not be any different, unless some unexpected events were involved.

    Finally, you see these things as "perfect" because humans naturally evolved in a way allowing them to best exploit the fruits of nature - so for us, indeed, many things in the nature are close to perfect. Only they are perfect not because someone made them so, but because we evolved in a way that naturally made us perceive them as perfect.
    Objectively speaking, there is nothing "perfect" in a near-circular planetary orbit. Even more so, the concept of a "circle" is our invention. Nature does not care about "circles", it is just what it is.



    from the article i pointed out that an evolution scientist said that space was to hostile for evolution to start.


    the evolution scientist said


    There are many factors that would make a star system too hostile for life to even get started, let alone survive for any period long enough to evolve. So what sort of star provides the perfect conditions for a habitable planet elsewhere in the universe?
    everything is fined tuned unless you can disprove all the measuring stuff.



    you are perfectly right here

    Objectively speaking, there is nothing "perfect" in a near-circular planetary orbit. Even more so, the concept of a "circle" is our invention. Nature does not care about "circles", it is just what it is.
    nature does not care about circles. so what the hell is this


    you are right a bunch of nothing would not make circles. there are 9 near perfect circles. for nothing to create an almost near circle is impossible it is like winning the lottery twice in a row. there 9 circles here so a bunch of nothing won the lottery 18 times.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @crossed

    You say ......What i am saying that it is impossible for life to come out of nothing.

    My reply ..The assumption that everything has to have been caused by something else might be incorrect. How does anyone know this? Maybe some things are infinite and uncaused. But, if believers are right and "everything" requires a cause, then that means something or someone must have "caused" their gods as well. You can't have it both ways. If, however, they say that there is an exception to the rule and their gods can exist without anything having caused them, then so can the Universe

    You say a lot of things without proofs. How is it impossible? Who created your god?

    You say .......Even if i won 1 time in my example, i said is like if i won the lottery a zillion trillion times. and ya if i won the lottery i would be praising god. 

    My reply .......Which god would you praise? 

    You say ......If i won the lottery one zillion times then i have sold my soul to the devil. i am not going to win a zillion times the chance of that happening is zero because there is not a zillion lottery's.

    My reply ......Who created the devil? How do you know the devil didn’t create the Universe?
    Factfinder
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @crossed

    "i said almost perfect circles because i have an understanding of physics. if i did not know anything i would say perfect circles because just look at a picture of them. THEY ARE CIRCLES. "

    That is not what I meant... have you ever tried asking anyone WHY they are circles? I am really surprised as to how you do not know of this but there is this thing called "gravity".
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @crossed

    Sure, but if you have billions galaxies with billions solar systems in each of them, then chances are quite a number of them will be tuned exactly as needed for abiogenesis to occur. 

    Furthermore, we do not know very well what conditions are necessary for abiogenesis to occur; we know the sufficient conditions, but the space of the necessary conditions can be much wider. It is possible, in fact, that virtually every solar system will eventually develop life in some form, we just are not knowledgeable enough to even conceive of the possibility of some of those forms.
  • crossedcrossed 58 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    MayCaesar
    Sure, but if you have billions galaxies with billions solar systems in each of them, then chances are quite a number of them will be tuned exactly as needed for abiogenesis to occur. 

    Furthermore, we do not know very well what conditions are necessary for abiogenesis to occur; we know the sufficient conditions, but the space of the necessary conditions can be much wider. It is possible, in fact, that virtually every solar system will eventually develop life in some form, we just are not knowledgeable enough to even conceive of the possibility of some of those forms.

    this stuff is more then fined tuned he measured some of this crud out when placing it


    I don't think you are getting the gravity of this one argument.


    Consequently, the moon and sun appear exactly the same size in Earth’s sky—making precise solar eclipses possible

    my conclusion

     god measured the sun and moon when placing it and as a result of that when you look at it from earth they come out to be the same exact size.
    the sun and moon are the exact same size from the viewpoint of earth. as a result of this perfect solar eclipses are possible



    for this to happen god would have had to measure the sun and moon when placing him






    these are not real numbers i have no idea how big the sun and moon are but i needed numbers to show what kind of measuring god did.




    the sun is 10 billion feet long and  10 billion miles from earth. The sun appears to be around 7 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth. I want the sun and moon to be a perfect 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.


     The moon is 7 billion feet long and is 10 billion miles from earth. From earths viewpoint the moon appears to be 5 billion feet long . i want the moon to  be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth


    i need to place the sun and moon where they are both 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.




    how god would have had to measured the sun. not real numbers and god would have not needed to do trail and error like me.

    the sun right now is 10 billion miles from earth and from the viewpoint of earth is 7 billion feet long.

     I want the sun to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.
    So  i bring the sun up 2  billion miles and as a result of that the  sun appears to be 5 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth and is 12 billion miles from earth.
     that is still not the the size i want the sun to be from the viewpoint of earth right now it is 5 billion feet long i want it to be 3 billion feet long. So i need to bring it up some more.
     so i  bring the the sun up another 2 billion feet. now the sun is 14 billion miles from earth and from the viewpoint of earth the sun appears to be 3 billion feet long.
    3 billion feet long is the size i wanted it so i keep it there and consider my measuring done.

    I placed the sun 14 billion miles away from earth so from the viewpoint of earth the sun would appear to be 3 billion feet long. i did this via measuring and trail and error but god would not have needed trial and error


    I want the moon to appear to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth to.
    right now the moon is 10 billion miles from earth and from the viewpoint of earth the sun appears to be 5 billion feet  long.
    So i move the moon up 2 billion miles now the moon is 12 billion miles and from the viewpoint of earth appears to be 3 billion feet long.
    3 billion feet long i show big i wanted it so i keep it there.


    i measured the sun out and placed it at 14 billion miles and because i wanted  the sun appears to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth

    i measured the Moon out and placed it 12 billion miles and because i measured it the moon appears to be 3 billion feet long from the viewpoint of earth.


    though i do not know the numbers god used.  god measured the sun and moon when placing them so they would be the same size from the viewpoint of earth.

    god would have had to measure them out like this but without the trail and error. he is god.

    the sun and moon are the exact same size from the viewpoint of earth. so god measured it out just like i did up above



    and for the alien thing.

    It is possible, in fact, that virtually every solar system will eventually develop life in some form, we just are not knowledgeable enough to even conceive of the possibility of some of those forms.

    the talking point that space is so huge why would we  be the only life forms. This can only be true if the equally matched talking point "how can life just happen out of nowhere. How can nothing create life" is wrong.

    because if life did not start here by accident then life is not going to start over there by accident. life is created by god. so since life did not start here by accident. life is not going to start on another planet with aliens on it.


    i recommend you watch one of the you-tubers who covers the false alien invasion that seems to be going to happen. it will give you a good weekend. i forget who said this but it is believed the only way all the nations would team up is if we were attacked by aliens. so the free masons and the Illuminati are going to plan a false alien invasion in order to unite the world and bring the new world order. plus an alien abduction would be a good explanation for the rapture. my dad brought that up.



    Alexoakland said
    That is not what I meant... have you ever tried asking anyone WHY they are circles? I am really surprised as to how you do not know of this but there is this thing called "gravity".


    it is still a huge coincidence that the planets are all round.  theirs a few holes in this. Why is it only the planets in which gravity effects all sides and makes it perfect circles. Why are the meteors smashed down and made into perfect circles. if there is a gravitational Poul across surrounding this entire planets and it is pushing everything into being a circle. why are the trees and us are not being crushed down by it. since gravity is mashing this planet together into a perfect circle surly we would be mashed together with it

    https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/planets-round/en/




    Dee


    My reply ......Who created the devil? How do you know the devil didn’t create the Universe?
    because the devil is trying to make everyone believe that believing in Jesus is like believing in Santa. Satan has succeeded in this. the greatest trick that Satan ever did was convincing the world he never existed


    Santa is just Satan rearranged

    Satan and Santa are both red colored. Satan is depicted as pure red with horns
    santa wears red.

    santa clause last name is claws


    almost all the haunted houses in old tales are mansions. why are almost all the haunted  houses mansions.
    it seems only rich people get haunted. why is that is it because these people got rich by selling there soul to the devil and as a result of that they got haunted.


    dee said

    You say ......What i am saying that it is impossible for life to come out of nothing.

    the guy who wrote the book of nature would have had a stroke that you guys believe that the universe came from an explosion from nothing. aka the big bang theory.because he keep talking about in the book about how absurd the bible is for saying god created life from nothing. god voice thunders when he speaks so maybe he said let there be a planet and a huge explosion happened and then there was a planet



    dee said
    You say a lot of things without proofs. How is it impossible? Who created your god?
    idk all i have proof for is god created life.





    the apple when consumed feeds the good bacteria and not the bad. that is intelligence


    sweet flag roots go up into the brain and fixes the part of your brain that deals with stuttering. that is intelligence

    turmeric roots create new stem cells. that is intelligence.and revitalize neurons


    are appendix attacks bad germs but is a safe house for good germs. that is intelligence


    now i do not believe that the apple is an intelligent life form.


    we call are retarded people vegetables for Pete sake.

    But i believe are Creator is intelligent

    i believe god designed the apples to feed the good bacteria and not the bad.  because he had knowledge that good bacteria is good and bad bacteria is bad


    I believe it was god who designed sweet flag roots to go up into the brain and fix the part of the brain that deals with stuttering. He would have had to have knowledge of the brain in order to traverse it like that and would have to have knowledge on how to heal it in order to help the brain.


    you get the point etc



    i am tired of writing so i going to take a small break.










    AlexOlandPlaffelvohfen
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @crossed "it is still a huge coincidence that the planets are all round.  theirs a few holes in this. Why is it only the planets in which gravity effects all sides and makes it perfect circles. Why are the meteors smashed down and made into perfect circles. if there is a gravitational Poul across surrounding this entire planets and it is pushing everything into being a circle. why are the trees and us are not being crushed down by it. since gravity is mashing this planet together into a perfect circle surly we would be mashed together with it"

     Some things are not big enough to be mashed into a sphere under their own gravity. 

     Proof that you made no research: https://www.britannica.com/story/why-are-planets-round
     Literally the first result when you search "why are planets round"
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    "why are the trees and us are not being crushed down by it" a more logical question addressing the problem you think exists, would be asking why there are mountains.

     Now, think. A small thing does not have enough gravity to be circular. Therefore things should get more circular as their gravity increases. Meaning as things get heavier they gradually get more circular. Emphasis on "gradually". There isn't a line where if you cross it you instantly become a perfect circle. 

     So the reason why there are mountains is because earth's gravity is not enough to make it a perfect circle. 
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @crossed


    You have answered nothing but merely asserted  several things with zero evidence for each and every one of your claims, I honestly think you’re trolling at this stage or else you’re a mere child  because a lot of what you state is childish immature nonsense 
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    Please use a capital G.

    Jesus fine tuned the solar system, you're correct. A recent lab tests confirms that. See my other posts. Make sure to make it to heaven.
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @jesusisGod777


    You say ......Please use a capital G.

    My reply ......Why?

    You say ........Jesus fine tuned the solar system, you're correct.

    My reply .....Prove it 

    You say ..A recent lab tests confirms that.

    My reply ......Really and it didn’t even make headlines in the media 


    You say ......see my other posts. Make sure to make it to heaven.

    My reply .....What’s heaven?
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    How many scientific reports are broadcast?

    That's exactly who you don't have knowledge of the tests.

    Look up,

    Blood test results of Jesus Christ.

    Then look up,

    Proof for Adam and Eve and look at the test David thaler was a part of, he happened to prove evolution to be false and that Adam and Eve were the first two people on planet Earth. 

    I want you to take a second to think.

    If any of the people in the Bible we're proven to exist, especially Adam and Eve what does that mean?

    I want you to answer that question if you intend to and then we can work from your statement, prove it.
  • crossedcrossed 58 Pts   -  

    dee
    You have answered nothing but merely asserted  several things with zero evidence for each and every one of your claims, I honestly think you’re trolling at this stage or else you’re a mere child  because a lot of what you state is childish immature nonsense 


    dee said


    My reply ......Who created the devil? How do you know the devil didn’t create the Universe?





    whats wrong with this response



    because the devil is trying to make everyone believe that believing in Jesus is like believing in Santa. Satan has succeeded in this. the greatest trick that Satan ever did was convincing the world he never existed


    Santa is just Satan rearranged

    Satan and Santa are both red colored. Satan is depicted as pure red with horns
    santa wears red.

    santa clause last name is claws


    almost all the haunted houses in old tales are mansions. why are almost all the haunted  houses mansions.
    it seems only rich people get haunted. why is that is it because these people got rich by selling there soul to the devil and as a result of that they got haunted.




    whats wrong with this


    You say ......What i am saying that it is impossible for life to come out of nothing.
    the guy who wrote the book of nature would have had a stroke that you guys believe that the universe came from an explosion from nothing. aka the big bang theory.because he keep talking about in the book about how absurd the bible is for saying god created life from nothing. god voice thunders when he speaks so maybe he said let there be a planet and a huge explosion happened and then there was a planet



    whats wrong with this claim?????



    idk all i have proof for is god created life.





    the apple when consumed feeds the good bacteria and not the bad. that is intelligence


    sweet flag roots go up into the brain and fixes the part of your brain that deals with stuttering. that is intelligence

    turmeric roots create new stem cells. that is intelligence.and revitalize neurons


    are appendix attacks bad germs but is a safe house for good germs. that is intelligence


    now i do not believe that the apple is an intelligent life form.


    we call are retarded people vegetables for Pete sake.

    But i believe are Creator is intelligent

    i believe god designed the apples to feed the good bacteria and not the bad.  because he had knowledge that good bacteria is good and bad bacteria is bad


    I believe it was god who designed sweet flag roots to go up into the brain and fix the part of the brain that deals with stuttering. He would have had to have knowledge of the brain in order to traverse it like that and would have to have knowledge on how to heal it in order to help the brain.




  • crossedcrossed 58 Pts   -  
    alexoak


    stars are bigger than the moon.

    All stars are bigger than the moon. Much bigger in fact. Stars only appear small because of their distance from us. The stars are in fact suns, some bigger and brighter than our sun.
    https://www.answers.com/Q/Are_stars_bigger_or_the_moon_bigger



    if the moon is round because of gravity. and this gravity only effects large things. then why did not this gravity make 5 pointed stars round which is bigger then the moon
    PlaffelvohfenAlexOland
  • AlexOlandAlexOland 313 Pts   -  
    @crossed

    then why did not this gravity make 5 pointed stars round which is bigger then the moon

     There is no way you are not a troll. I refuse to believe it.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @crossed


    Go away you foolish Troll , you have to be a Troll because I’ve never met anyone so offensively ,  if you’re not a Troll if you’re just an  on a different level
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Junior12macJunior12mac 2 Pts   -  
    IF god did infact whip out his big ruler and measure it exactly why is it that every year the moon moves away from the earth every year due to Jupiter's gravity being so vast so that in 10 million years we wont have solar eclipses 
  • AkhenatenAkhenaten 106 Pts   -  
    You must understand the concept of solar flux. The sun produces a solar wind which shapes the planets. The moon is a product of a solar shadow of the earth. The earth protects the moon from solar flux radiation and limits its size to the shadow area. This is why the moon fits the sun perfectly.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 809 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Very Humbling


    This is the Laniakea galactic supercluster.  The red dot is our Milky Way galaxy.  Did God create the entire Universe just for us?
    Dreamer
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    You know you are undercutting your own argument, right?  According to the multii-versial hypothesis the most commonly generated universe should be no bigger than our solar system.  It is extremely unlikely given the variables that we would expect to see a universe as large as this one.
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 809 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    You know you are undercutting your own argument, right?  According to the multii-versial hypothesis the most commonly generated universe should be no bigger than our solar system.  It is extremely unlikely given the variables that we would expect to see a universe as large as this one.
    I'm not talking about a multiverse.  I'm talking about how insignificant Earth and the entire Milky Way Galaxy are.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmm, I never heard of this before can you provide a source?


    "According to the multii-versial hypothesis the most commonly generated universe should be no bigger than our solar system."

    Thank you in advance. :)

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold
    You know you are undercutting your own argument, right?  According to the multii-versial hypothesis the most commonly generated universe should be no bigger than our solar system.  It is extremely unlikely given the variables that we would expect to see a universe as large as this one.
    The "size of the Universe" is a shaky concept. From the observer's perspective, the Universe is infinite. When cosmologists talk about the size of the Universe, they mean something entirely different: the diameter of the sphere of the most distant sources of light from which light reaches the observer - which, in a funny way, is technically larger than the size of the "physical" Universe (the latter has the radius of approximately 14 billion years, while the former 47 billion years, due to the effects of the expansion of the Universe). Another way to think about it is the inverse of the average density of the Universe, which decreases over time, so the distance between two equivalent macroscopic objects, on average, grows.

    The article you referred to completely misrepresents Boltzmann's ideas. There exist absolutely zero constraints on the parameters determining the distribution of "sizes" (subject to the caveats above) of Universes. There also exist absolutely zero constraints on change of this distribution if we constrain ourselves to only considering Universes eventually giving birth to conscious life able to observe them. It is possible that all Universes have to be exactly equivalent to each other. Furthermore, for most models there can exist no observable evidence of these things: the theory of the multiverse is just a convenient modelling assumption, and many physicists do not even consider it a physics theory (I may be one of them).

    Finally, even if we were to grant you that the most likely Universe would be the "size" of the Solar system, and even assuming that the overall distribution is somewhat "smooth" and with the probability of close to 1 a given generated Universe will be sufficiently close to this "size"... How do you imagine Earth-like life appearing in a Universe like that. It seems to me that, given what we know about ourselves, a very large Universe is required for our existence, so the fact that we exist at all already implies that we live in a Universe pretty far into the tail of the distribution. In that case what the most common "size" of the Universe is is completely irrelevant.

    Most people who do not deal with mathematics and statistics a lot in their everyday life have a very poor intuition in this respect. Your argument is based on chief misunderstanding of conditional probability, specifically that the base distribution does not have to have much in common with the related conditional distribution. A simple example would be the distribution of life expectancy of the overall global population, and the distribution of life expectancy of victims of miscarriage. It would be bizarre to model the latter with the former.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    What Craig is talking about is the probability of a universe forming and its size from a quantum fluctuation. The amount of energy available with all of the other factors needed to create a life permitting universe.  And without getting too technical, the time it takes for the fundamental forces to form enough to allow inflation is longer than the fluctuation exists, meaning that the universe could never grow to start with and would instantly disappear and cease to exist.  Even Krauss has mentioned this defect in his theory.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    I am sorry, but if so, then Craig does not know what he is talking about. The concept of "energy" does not make any sense outside of the scope of an already existing Universe; there is no "energy needed to create a Universe". As for the probability of a Universe forming with any particular properties, it has not been quantified in any of the popular proposed models - and, in fact, there are good reasons to expect it to be unquantifiable in principle.
    What some physicists have done as a toy mental experiment is consider the modern Universe and the quantum fluctuations of its vacuum, and then take the distribution of those fluctuations as a prior to plug into a "multiverse space" model. There is absolutely zero reason for these distributions to be the same, or even similar in any way - however, for the lack of a better idea, this works better than nothing. Fun experiment, but making arguments in favor of god's existence based on it is fairly ridiculous.
    It is like looking at your neighborhood, noticing that you have 10 neighbors and 3 of them have Toyota cars, and then proclaiming that 30% of Americans have Japanese wives. Sure, if you do have to come up with a number based on anything other than a random guess, and you have no other relevant knowledge whatsoever, then this estimate is as good as you are going to get - but you have to realize that this number is virtually useless in practice. Feynman proposed a similar scenario: if no one has ever seen the Chinese emperor, but everyone is asked to guess the length of the emperor's nose, then taking the average of all the guesses will give you an estimate - and that estimate is completely meaningless.

    These are not fantasy stories to talk about by a campfire. These are serious and complicated physical theories, and while Craig is certainly knowledgeable in a large variety of fields, his attempts to make physics-driven arguments are clumsy.
    ZeusAres42
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmm, I don't know much about the reasonable faithwebsite. I was hoping for a well known scientific journal.


    From what I've read is that we aren't sure that there is even a multi-verse.

    "So is there another you out there, reading this exact same article? Science says: It's tough to say." Paul Sutter 2021



  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    Hmmm, I don't know much about the reasonable faithwebsite. I was hoping for a well known scientific journal.

    You may not agree with William Lane Craig's religious beliefs, but know that he is referring to Ludwig Boltzmann.  He is both critiquing his many worlds hypothesis as well as subtly referencing the 'Boltzmann brain'  argument.  The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void, complete with a memory of having existed in our universe, rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.  I wouldn't say that Boltzmann, nor Roger Penrose are spurious cosmologists to reference.  

    The real reason that the multiverse theory is so popular is because when you look at the fine tuning of the universe it seems unrealistic to believe it happened accidentally.  The many worlds view is held primarily because scientists don't like the high improbability of a universe that could support life.  W Lane Craig cites Roger Penrose: " calculated that the odds of our universe’s 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 system’s 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 “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5])."

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    That is a very frivolous interpretation of that experiment. Once again, you are not thinking about the nature of the probabilities in question. The "spontaneously formed brain" can only form in the existing spacetime, therefore, no matter how unlikely the Universe is to have appeared in the first place, the probability of the brain appearing is necessarily significantly smaller than that probability.
    The point of this thought experiment is also completely different. It is that, given that, in any arbitrarily small time interval, the number of sets of particles of arbitrary size temporarily formed somewhere is infinite, hence, statistically speaking, it is much more likely that your consciousness is a product of such a brain, than that your brain is a "static" part of the Universe. This argument is flawed on many accounts, one being that it is not clear if a system of virtual particles can have consciousness, another being that there can be limitations on the sets of virtual particles that can be formed we are not aware of (but can hypothesize about) - nonetheless, it is a much more sound argument than the one you are making.

    As for the reasons behind the popularity of the idea of the multiverse, it has absolutely nothing to do with any "fine tuning of the Universe". The original inspiration for the idea was the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which all possible quantum states are achieved at every moment, and our world is merely one of the infinity of worlds choosing one of them at random. Generalizing this idea beyond the existing spacetime, one can posit that our Universe, in turn, is merely one of the infinity of Universes, each starting in possibly different (randomized) initial states. Furthermore, the equations of the General Relativity Theory allow for "border" regions between such Universes to exist, in which Universes exchange certain properties and, possibly, even matter; such regions have never been observed, but neither has their existence been outlawed.

    For the N-th time I have to warn people against reading some philosophers' articles and assuming that they understand something about hard science.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I wouldn't know about probability and the multi-verse.


    Even if there was intelligence that helped create the universe, it doesn't mean an omnipotent God let alone a specific God Jesus. A billion aliens barely more intelligent than us might have helped create the universe.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    A billion aliens barely more intelligent than us might have helped create the universe.

    The best available evidence suggests the universe is expanding and that it had a beginning. The idea of an expanding/contracting universe is dead as the evidence shows there isn't enough mass for such a thing to happen.  So exactly where did spacetime come from.  The science says it can be traced back to a planck length (before that science breaks down).  So tell me just how much space can you fit in zero space?  That's the appropriate question to ask.

    Since aliens would be made of space-time, how would they exist prior to the creation of space-time? Whatever made our universe would need to exist outside of space-time and would have to be incredibly powerful to create such a large universe and considering the enormous fine tuning necessary to create any expanding universe, let alone one that is life permitting, this creation source would need to be very intelligent.  So whatever made the universe would need to spaceless, timeless, powerful enough to create universes and intelligent to create a life permitting universe. Sounds a lot like God to me.

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    That is a very frivolous interpretation of that experiment. 

    It is a though experiment by Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's partner,  Not really a frivolous guy.  He is the one who calculated the odds of our universe's low entropy at 10 to the 123rd power.  That's a 10 followed by 123 zeros.  To put that number into perspective, there are approximately 10 to the 80th power particles, not atoms, but the stuff that makes up atoms, in the universe. 10^80 is much much smaller than 10^123.  Yet, 1 chance in 10^123 power is just the odds of the low entropy of the universe that would permit an expanding universe.  That is just the probability of but one of many factors.  

    As for the probability of a Universe forming with any particular properties, it has not been quantified in any of the popular proposed models - and, in fact, there are good reasons to expect it to be unquantifiable in principle.

    That sounds like gibberish.

    It is that, given that, in any arbitrarily small time interval, the number of sets of particles of arbitrary size temporarily formed somewhere is infinite, hence, statistically speaking, it is much more likely that your consciousness is a product of such a brain, than that your brain is a "static" part of the Universe.

    Do you know what nothing can create?  The correct answer is nothing.  Nothing has no properties to create anything with.  It seems like you are appealing to a multiverse or a de sitter space where energy fluctuates (as proposed by Alan Guth).  

    My brain is made up of space-time.  That's all that is provable.  A virtual particle can only exist for a planck time or 5.39 × 10^-44 seconds.  So if your consciousness is depended up it, then your physical body can never relay anything to you in that fast of a time.  

    it is a much more sound argument than the one you are making.

    It is actually Sir Roger Penrose of Cambridge and Stephen Hawking's partner that is pointing out that it would be far more likely for our universe to be no bigger than our solar system based on math calculations.  

    As for the reasons behind the popularity of the idea of the multiverse, it has absolutely nothing to do with any "fine tuning of the Universe"

    No.  It has everything to do with it.  The odds of all of the fundamental forces being so precisely organized to create a universe, let alone a life permitting one are incomprehensibly small.  People believe in the multiverse to suggest that there are bunch of universes out there somewhere and therefore more likely one like ours could form.  They don't believe in a multiverse because of the evidence - which there isn't any.  In fact, one would expect there to be a radiation signature from eternal universe making machine.  It has never been found.  

    I have no idea if there is a multiverse or not.  I do know that it doesn't make the atheists job easier, for as infinitesimally small are the odds of our universe existing, the odds that some random occurrence caused a multiverse making "machine" that spits out an infinite number of universe is vastly more improbable.  The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe or multiverse that has on average been expanding cannot be be past eternal.   

     


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -   edited July 2023
    just_sayin said:

    It is a though experiment by Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking's partner,  Not really a frivolous guy.  He is the one who calculated the odds of our universe's low entropy at 10 to the 123rd power.  That's a 10 followed by 123 zeros.  To put that number into perspective, there are approximately 10 to the 80th power particles, not atoms, but the stuff that makes up atoms, in the universe. 10^80 is much much smaller than 10^123.  Yet, 1 chance in 10^123 power is just the odds of the low entropy of the universe that would permit an expanding universe.  That is just the probability of but one of many factors.  
    That is not at all what Roger Penrose calculated. What he calculated is the fraction the set of all Universes with a set of parameter values sufficiently close to ours takes of the entire phase space of all possible Universes - resulting from a large number of highly restrictive assumptions. It is a very loose toy thought experiment that is not intended to have any strong scientific conclusions drawn from it.


    just_sayin said:

    That sounds like gibberish.

    With such a brilliant argument you completely obliterated my position, sir.


    just_sayin said:

    Do you know what nothing can create?  The correct answer is nothing.  Nothing has no properties to create anything with.  It seems like you are appealing to a multiverse or a de sitter space where energy fluctuates (as proposed by Alan Guth).  

    My brain is made up of space-time.  That's all that is provable.  A virtual particle can only exist for a planck time or 5.39 × 10^-44 seconds.  So if your consciousness is depended up it, then your physical body can never relay anything to you in that fast of a time.  

    I am appealing to one of the most fundamental results in particle physics, one that makes the whole Boltzmann Brain thought experiment possible. It has nothing to do with a "multiverse" or "de Sitter space", but everything to do with the quantum uncertainty principle.

    The lifetime of a virtual particle is an ill-defined concept. As for the mechanics of it, since we have no idea how consciousness works, the idea of a "virtual brain" having consciousness is not completely outruled.


    just_sayin said:

    It is actually Sir Roger Penrose of Cambridge and Stephen Hawking's partner that is pointing out that it would be far more likely for our universe to be no bigger than our solar system based on math calculations.  

    I have already explained why theirs is a meaningless result of a toy thought experiment. You have to go into the woods of their work to understand it; do not assume that making an attribution to "math calculations" somehow strengthens your argument.



    just_sayin said:

    No.  It has everything to do with it.  The odds of all of the fundamental forces being so precisely organized to create a universe, let alone a life permitting one are incomprehensibly small.  People believe in the multiverse to suggest that there are bunch of universes out there somewhere and therefore more likely one like ours could form.  They don't believe in a multiverse because of the evidence - which there isn't any.  In fact, one would expect there to be a radiation signature from eternal universe making machine.  It has never been found.  

    I have no idea if there is a multiverse or not.  I do know that it doesn't make the atheists job easier, for as infinitesimally small are the odds of our universe existing, the odds that some random occurrence caused a multiverse making "machine" that spits out an infinite number of universe is vastly more improbable.  The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe or multiverse that has on average been expanding cannot be be past eternal.   

    I have already explained why you are wrong and why no one can possibly calculate such odds, in addition to your missing of the fact that we are talking about conditional probabilities, not prior ones. If you are not going to address that explanation, then there is no point coming back to this again.

    "Atheists" do not have any particular job to do here that other scientists do not. The question of god existing is completely separate from the question of whether there are other Universes. There can be multiple Universes and one god, or one Universe and multiple gods, or multiple Universes and no gods, or one Universe and no gods, or any other combination of these. Given how little is known about the nature of our Universe (and, again, it might be fundamentally unknowable, same way as you fundamentally cannot have any memories from before you were conceived), making weird probabilistic arguments in favor of or against any claim about existence of god(s) a philosophical gobbledygook.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -   edited July 2023
    @MayCaesar
    The lifetime of a virtual particle is an ill-defined concept. 

    Actually, the time that a virtual particle exists is quite well known and definitive (you did read what I wrote above, right?  I gave a pretty specific time).  Many cosmologists have pointed this out to Krauss as death knell for his theory as the time that a virtual particle exists is much shorter than the time needed for the fundamental forces needed for inflation to form, meaning we never get a universe like ours under Krauss' theory.  

    Further, the space-time theorems prove that time has a beginning coincident with the beginning of the universe. Thus, the time interval at the beginning of the universe is zero. This eliminates quantum mechanics as a possible candidate for natural generator of the universe..  

    I have already explained why you are wrong and why no one can possibly calculate such odds, 

    Do you even read what other people wrote before you reply?  It was Sir Roger Penrose who made the calculation.  He is one of the leading cosmologists in the world.  If he thinks the odds can be calculated and are significant, they probably are.  And his calculation  was on the low entropy factor needed to generate our universe at roughly 1 in 10^123 power, is but one of astronomically large numbers against the universe occurring randomly.  Even the most ardent atheist cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, could admit that the universe appeared finely tuned and that there were no obvious scientific reasons for it being so.  Yet, you think you know better than Penrose and Hawking.  Know you made me smile.

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: God of the gaps. Old wine new bottle.


    "So exactly where did spacetime come from?" Just_sayin

    This fallacy has persisted since the 1880s.


    Also, making God more powerful only makes God more unlikely. This also raises the question who created God and runs into infinite regressions.  A simpler and better solution would be that any fine tuning done by intelligence would be from advanced aliens that evolved slowly over time. These aliens also increased in technology quickly.

    Just think of how far humans have come while barely increasing our intelligence in both knowledge and technology. Some even say our ancestors were smarter since they had to memorize everything rather than writing/reading a book or article online.

    Humans have managed to build and deploy nuclear weapons and bringing the dead back to life with mouth to mouth. If this is not God like to medieval person I don't know what is. Perhaps buffoons but highly technology advanced aliens managed to somehow create the universe.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5965 Pts   -  
    just_sayin said:

    Actually, the time that a virtual particle exists is quite well known and definitive (you did read what I wrote above, right?  I gave a pretty specific time).  Many cosmologists have pointed this out to Krauss as death knell for his theory as the time that a virtual particle exists is much shorter than the time needed for the fundamental forces needed for inflation to form, meaning we never get a universe like ours under Krauss' theory.  

    Further, the space-time theorems prove that time has a beginning coincident with the beginning of the universe. Thus, the time interval at the beginning of the universe is zero. This eliminates quantum mechanics as a possible candidate for natural generator of the universe..  

    It makes no sense to talk about a virtual particle existing for a certain period of time and then disappearing. When we talk about virtual particles being born and dying, we use the language quite frivolously. What we can calculate with 100% precision is something like "expected time a given virtual particle with given energy is able to interact with other particles", although even pointing at a specific virtual particle might not be very sensible. Virtual particles are an abstraction.
    Criticism of the theory Krauss outlined in his "A Universe from Nothing" book is criticism of his particular explanation of the Universe formation. It does not at all imply any of the claims you made above. The fact that one of the infinity of possible theories of how the Universe could have emerged spontaneously has unresolved problems does not imply that the idea of it emerging spontaneously itself is problematic.

    What are "the space-time theorems" that you are referring to? 


    just_sayin said:

    Do you even read what other people wrote before you reply?  It was Sir Roger Penrose who made the calculation.  He is one of the leading cosmologists in the world.  If he thinks the odds can be calculated and are significant, they probably are.  And his calculation  was on the low entropy factor needed to generate our universe at roughly 1 in 10^123 power, is but one of astronomically large numbers against the universe occurring randomly.  Even the most ardent atheist cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, could admit that the universe appeared finely tuned and that there were no obvious scientific reasons for it being so.  Yet, you think you know better than Penrose and Hawking.  Know you made me smile.
    I wonder if you do, for I explained in detail what exactly Penrose's calculation involved. He does not "think the odds can be calculated and are significant"; what he calculated is a value in a toy model to illustrate the possibility, in principle, to eventually calculate it accurately, as our models improve. I hope I do not need to explain to you what a "toy model" is, for if you feel capable of discussing such complicated work as Penrose's research in cosmology, you certainly must have had an experience playing with such models.

    I do not know "better than Penrose and Hawking". As far as I can tell, nothing that I wrote either of them would disagree with scientifically (although they could have philosophical disagreements with me). They would be... wary of your interpretations of their work, however. But you have a cute smile, so there is that.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    This fallacy has persisted since the 1880s.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
    Also, making God more powerful only makes God more unlikely. This also raises the question who created God and runs into infinite regressions.  A simpler and better solution would be that any fine tuning done by intelligence would be from advanced aliens that evolved slowly over time. These aliens also increased in technology quickly.
    Just think of how far humans have come while barely increasing our intelligence in both knowledge and technology. Some even say our ancestors were smarter since they had to memorize everything rather than writing/reading a book or article online.
    Humans have managed to build and deploy nuclear weapons and bringing the dead back to life with mouth to mouth. If this is not God like to medieval person I don't know what is. Perhaps buffoons but highly technology advanced aliens managed to somehow create the universe.

    First, it is you who are employing a science of the gaps argument.  The science says our universe had a beginning and the science shows that our universe is very finely tuned for life when there aren't any scientific reasons those parameters should exist as they do.  Have you paid attention to the silliness that has been advocated by the science of the gaps crowd.  They have claimed the universe was created from nothing.  They say this is possible because of "magic" science. But logic suggests that nothing can not create something for nothing has nothing to create it with.  This is just special pleading and a faith appeal to science.  But all the scientific evidence we have says that our universe had a beginning, that it came from zero height, width, and depth, and that it contained all the mass of the universe.  Tell me, scientifically, just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Go head and appeal to quantum magic so I can call you out for your appeal to science of the gaps.  Yours is the faith claim.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat.  Your position is worse than yelling "magic".

    My position recognizes that if our universe exists, then something beyond it must have created it, This is the logic of the Kalam cosmological argument.  I point to the finely tuned cosmological constants to show that random settings of the constants would result in virtually no universes, not just life permitting universes, I mean no universes period.  The gravitational constant is so finely tuned that a little heavier and the universe collapses before it can expand, and just a fraction less gravity results in particles never forming atoms.  

    Explain to me how an advanced human made from space-time, can exist outside of space-time and create space-time.  I'm waiting.  If you are going to argue for "magic" at least make it entertaining.

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Strawperson argument.


    "They have claimed the universe was created from nothing."

    Not exactly, creating a strawperson to light on fire and kick around the stage doesn't address my argument.

    "The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing." However, this quantum vacuum is a very loaded nothing" Marcelo Gleiser


    This is what gets religion in trouble the anti-science aspect of creationism. Science is a self-correcting process based upon vigorous standards of evidence and logic. Yes, scientists get concepts wrong, thus the self-correcting part. Religion in contrast has almost no self-correcting and is based upon old books and anecdotes.

    "The second most likely cause of people leaving the faith is the political and social issues that their religion was promoting. Those include racism and a disregard for science and basic human rights." Tim Zeak


    Please stop with this anti-science creationism worship of the God of the gaps. This idol worship of the God of the gaps cheapens faith.

    "In 1933, Ernest Barnes, the Bishop of Birmingham, used the phrase in a discussion of general relativity's implication of a Big Bang: Must we then postulate Divine intervention? Are we to bring in God to create the first current of Laplace's nebula or to let off the cosmic firework of Lemaître's imagination? I confess an unwillingness to bring God in this way upon the scene. The circumstances with thus seem to demand his presence are too remote and too obscure to afford me any true satisfaction." wikipedia





  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    "They have claimed the universe was created from nothing."
    Not exactly, creating a strawperson to light on fire and kick around the stage doesn't address my argument.

    "The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing." However, this quantum vacuum is a very loaded nothing" Marcelo Gleiser
    https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03/26/175352714/the-origin-of-the-universe-from-nothing-everything

    Sigh.  The very language of "a universe from nothing" is not mine, but has been used since 1973 by cosmologists that favored various forms of vacuum fluctuation models.  Krauss even used the idea int he title of his book.  Don't blame me for its use.  Even Stephen Hawking used this language.  For his Hartle-Hawking model said the universe "would quite literally be created out of nothing; not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe." - (Hartle and Hawking, "Wave Function of the Universe", 2961; Hawking and Penrose, Nature of Space and Time, 85.).  

    I accurately described the issues (more accurately than Krauss who uses at least 5 different definitions of "nothing" in his book).  

    The scientific problems with the theory are numerous.  In fact it was rejected by most cosmologists back in the 80's.  As cosmologist Christopher Isham observed, if the theory were true that random vacuum fluctuations could create universes that are infinitely expanding, then since this process has been going on infinitely, the universe we observe should not be a relatively young one of 12 -14 billion years, but an infinitely old one where all the infinite number of other universes has coalesced together.  Isham said this problem was "fairly lethal" to the who theory and why it had not found wide acceptance - Christopher isham, Space, Time and Quantum Cosmology, in God, Time, and Modern Physics, March 1990.

    The HUP problem is a serious one.  Essentially we know how long a virtual particle can last and particles with more energy "exist" with matter much shorter in duration.  Considering the estimated mass of the universe, the time that such a virtual particle can exist according to HUP is too short for the forces that would trigger inflation to begin.  In other words, science says you won't get a universe.  But hey, I keep explaining to you that what you believe is more faith claim than science.

    Krauss countered with a psuedo science theory that the time issue could be resolved if the net energy in the universe is zero.  And I mean a very finely tuned zero.  From a pure odds standpoint that is astronomically unlikely.  Further, for a virtual particle to "exist" as matter means that it must have spacetime in which to do it, making zero energy even more of a dream of quantum magic than real science.  

    Let's look at your science of the gaps - which is really an appeal to magic:

    1)  Is your view reproducible?  Nope.  We detect virtual particles related to Hydrogen all the time - not one has created a baby universe.  And surely we should see numerous baby universes in our universe if this were true.

    2) Does it violate any known science?  Yep, the HUP and first law of thermodynamics.  But you still think you can pull a rabbit universe out of your hat virtual particle.  Can you prove 0 energy exists?  Well, no it is impossible to sum up all energy.  we don't even know if we know all the energy forms int he universe.  And statistically, the odds of zero being the correct amount are astronomical.  But you believe it by faith.  It is not a claim of science, but of faith - be honest about that.

    3) Is there observational evidence against it being true?  Yep.  We see virtual particles all the time that don't form baby universes.  We should see all kinds of stuff popping into existence.  Yet, we don't.  We should see an infinitely old universe, but we don't.  

    Yet you cling to your science of the gaps, even though science rejects the very thing you cling to.  From the evidence of our universe we can deduce:

    1) The universe had a beginning

    2) Whatever created the universe must exist outside of space-time, for space-time did not create itself.

    3) Whatever ever created the universe must be powerful enough to create universes.

    4) Whatever created the universe must be spaceless and timeless because it exists outside of space-time.

    5) The universe appears to be finely tuned with the odds of such random fundamental forces having the values that they do being astronomically small - so small that a reasonable person would say, it isn't reasonable to think that's by chance.  So the universe appears to be created by an intelligence.

    That sounds like God to me.

    While your tale sounds like a fairy tale where I must ignore the scientific evidence in order to believe in it.

    .  


    Sonofason
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin ;That sounds like God to me. While your tale sounds like a fairy tale where I must ignore the scientific evidence in order to believe in it.

    I think that your got to stop being so biased in order to believe it because your saying that its a fairy tail. So you have to think that if your going to be biased against a belief that 80% of the world knows about you have to think about all the other things you poopoo just because you have a bias against them in the first place. Just because there is no scientific evidence now that proves conclusively that there is a God it doesn't mean that its a fairy tail. If I told you that there is an iPhone 50 years ago that had all the books in the world, has a TV, and a cinema and a dictionary and a math calculator and a publisher and a phone and a flash light and a speaker and a movie camera in one little bit of glass in your pocket I bet you would say that I am telling fairy tails. And if all the scientists were negative like you and poopoo the iPhone and all the other things that science discovers then we would still be living in caves. 

  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: There is going to be weaknesses is any scientific theory. More so the further we go back in time the creation of the universe.


    A creationist can point to any number of unlikely events in evolution and declare evolution a lie straight from the pit of Hell. One common example is attacking the idea of walking whales.

    "The much longer sequences of fortuitous events necessary for a new species or a new process to evolve leads to the minuscule numbers that creationists argue prove that evolution is so wildly improbable as to be essentially impossible.

    This line of argument, however, is deeply flawed." JOHN ALLEN PAULOS

    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2384584&page=1

    "8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance" John Rennie on July 1, 2002

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

    As you can see your argument is very similar to the pseudo-mathematics that creationists use. In the end science is backed by evidence, even if we have very little evidence on such an event in the deep past. This is still better than religion which provides no evidence into the creation of the universe.






  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    A creationist can point to any number of unlikely events in evolution and declare evolution a lie straight from the pit of Hell. One common example is attacking the idea of walking whales.
    "The much longer sequences of fortuitous events necessary for a new species or a new process to evolve leads to the minuscule numbers that creationists argue prove that evolution is so wildly improbable as to be essentially impossible.
    This line of argument, however, is deeply flawed." JOHN ALLEN PAULOS
    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2384584&page=1
    "8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance" John Rennie on July 1, 2002
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
    As you can see your argument is very similar to the pseudo-mathematics that creationists use. In the end science is backed by evidence, even if we have very little evidence on such an event in the deep past. This is still better than religion which provides no evidence into the creation of the universe.

    1. I don't have a problem accepting evolution.  My view of God is not dependent on a certain view of creation.

    2. Just an observation - look back over the discussion.  I'm the one who references a lot of science - science that says the theories of the universe that you pointed to don't work.

    3. I wish I had as much faith as you have.  Sure, I guess if I came up on an iPhone on the ground I could theorize that natural forces given enough time and chance had created it.  The odds of that are infinitely more probable than the fundamental forces of our universe all coming together as they did to create a universe, again I'm not talking about a life permitting universe yet, just a universe where atoms can be formed.  But it just seems a whole lot more probable to me that Apple made the iPhone.  Same for the universe.  It just seems that it is more probable that an intelligence is behind it..  I wish I had your faith.  I am truly envious of it.

    4.  I read your Scientific American article.  First, there is no "natural selection" in creating a protein.  It is a chemical reaction.  The vast majority of statistical chemical reactions result in strands that will negatively impact further bonding.  Proteins are created by linking together amino acids into protein links called polypeptide chains.   The odds of even a simple chain of just a short strand of proteins forming together that are beneficial is astronomical.  Your article fails to understand, why that is.  Amino Acids have a basic structure of three components, an amino group made of −H2N, a carboxyl group −COOH and what is called the R-group or variable group which is composed of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. If you believe you can create basic protein strings that can replicate themselves without aiding them in the process, then feel free to show me the chemistry diagram of it.  If you are familiar with basic chemistry you will quickly realize that the natural bonding of these will result in reactions that will harm the strand and prevent the desired chemical bondings.  If you think I'm full of it, then please diagram it.  Know that they will give you a Nobel Prize if you do.  In order to form the most basic of replicating proto-RNA, you will need several different proteins working together all of which must have formed accidentally without manipulation and which chemically will trigger negative effects that will destroy the reaction.  This is a lot more complex and unlikely than you think. Your article makes a passing reference to proteins originating from "space".  The reason is that there are no likely scenarios where these reactions could have occurred on a primordial earth.  

    That is why Francis Crick, discoverer of the double-helix DNA strand, claimed that the natural processes needed for even the simplest life form were too complex to have originated on earth and suggested panspermia as an alternate view.  That doesn't solve the problem it just pushes it back another level.  But at least he was honest.  


  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Hmmm, it seems you are a creationist.


    "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.[1][2] In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views,[3][4] which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.["


    In this sense you are a creationist because you think God created the universe and the origin of life. Am I correct?



  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    I believe God initiated the universe and life. Through supernatural or natural means - doesn't matter to me.  When I look at the evidence it seems more likely to me that God initiated the universe.  The odds are so great and the fine tuning is so precise that it seems unlikely to me that the universe is a chance event.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    You claim there are no miracles, yet as Joe Rogan points out, that is exactly what you want us to grant you and then forget about.  There is no naturalistic theory that has been shown to work to produce a universe out of nothing (or at least something no bigger than Planck size).  if you think I'm wrong, show me the formula to fit all the matter in the universe into zero space.  Biological life is another miracle that those who don't believe in God want to have granted to them.  There is no scientific explanation for the origin of life.  If you think I'm wrong, then please create life from non-life for me.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I can't create rocket fuel, but I know that there is a scientific process behind it.


    I've already linked to several scientific theories on the origin of life.


    Here's for the formation of the universe.


    Joe Rogan is a crank. "Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, the podcast has received criticism for spreading conspiracy theories and health misinformation."


    You rely again and again upon the God of the Gaps. Why not focus on how a light faerie is responsible when a light-bulb turns on when you flick a switch instead?



  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -   edited November 2023
    @just_sayin @Dreamer
    If you think I'm wrong, then please create life from non-life for me.

    Sure Ill be happy to do that. Now when Ive finished in 9 billion years time Ill show you the results.

    Is that fare enough.

    Factfinder
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -   edited November 2023
    Dreamer said:

    I've already linked to several scientific theories on the origin of life.


    Here's for the formation of the universe.


    Joe Rogan is a crank. "Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, the podcast has received criticism for spreading conspiracy theories and health misinformation."


    You rely again and again upon the God of the Gaps. Why not focus on how a light faerie is responsible when a light-bulb turns on when you flick a switch instead?



    @Dreamer,
    With all due respect it is YOU who are relying on a science of the gaps argument.  Your Scientific American article is from 2013.  If you have paid any attention to science news over the past 2 months alone you know that astronomers are at a real crisis point as the Hubble telescopes images and measurements have resulted in a real quandary and the accepted inflationary theory of the universe.  The two sets of measurements used differ and have been repeated again and again.  This should not be and it does not appear to be a human calculating error.  

    You claim science has the answers, but when I ask what are they, you can't explain it.  You try to dodge by giving me an article from Scientific American, who just last month ran an article saying that there are no physical differences in the average man or woman.  Yet, the article you provided doesn't explain how a universe can come from nothing, or next to nothing.  Now there are dozens of theories, that's not what I'm saying - as all the theories have serious flaws in them - think I'm wrong just read some articles by the different theorists on each other's theories.  You want to just say - the universe created itself, that's a science of the gaps, because there is no known science which makes something from nothing.  

    I have mentioned this several times, but you reject it because it doesn't fit your faith claim that science created the universe, but it is never the less true.  The odds of a low entropy inflationary universe like ours forming just the principles of gravity forming at just enough to allow expansion, but not great to prevent it and not to small to keep atoms from being able to form was calculated by Roger Penrose at 10 to the 123rd power.  There are only 10 to the 53rd particles in the universe (not atoms, the stuff that makes up atoms).  And that is just but one factor.  In reality all of the constants are incredibly fined tuned to have a life permitting universe.  There is no scientific reason that they should be as they are as Penrose points out, so it is logical to assume they are not accidental. Especially when you consider all of the constants together.

    When it comes to life, you again appeal to the science of the gaps.  Scientists use to think that all you needed to create life was some basic chemicals, and maybe some lightning to make something happen.  In reality scientists can't even map out a logical chemical sequence for the formation of a DNA sequence for even the most simplest one celled creature, much less an RNA system of replication for one.  That's why the discoverer of DNA suggested panspermia rather than a natural means for its creation, because he admitted that it was too complex to originate on earth.  

    If you aren't engaged in a science of the gaps argument, then it should be a breeze for you to show me abiogenesis.  Come on,  I don't have all day! Or all week, or all month, or all century, or all millennia either.   Even though thousands of scientists have spent billions of dollars and collective hours on trying to create biological life, they have not done so.  But you say the science of the gaps has the answer.  You have been incredibly dishonest and have hidden behind your science of the gaps argument.  Yet, you can't answer the very basic questions of the formation of the universe and of even the first life form.  

    I believe God created the universe, the fact science suggests it had a beginning, the reality that it is ridiculously fined tuned, the complexity of even the simplest life form, support that theory.  I am not opposed to evolutionary models.  If you had any exposure to what would need to happen to form the simplest life form, then you know that at least 10 different chemical miracles would need to happen.  

    As William Lane Craig has observed:

    In their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler lay out 10 steps necessary to the course of human evolution, each of which, each of which is so improbable, that before it would occur the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. Now it seems to me that if evolution did occur, then it would have had to been a miracle. In other words evolution is literally evidence for the existence of god!

    You are the one who is engaged in special pleading for science and wants to allow for miracles of the formation of the universe and for the first life form without a scientific explanation.  Be honest with yourself.  You are the one guilty of what you accused me of.  I have no problem in accepting God using natural means to create the universe and life - but you need to fabricate a science of the gaps argument, while I don't need a god of the gaps arguments to argue that it is more probable that God created the universe from the available evidence.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch