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
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
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: lottery ticket    lottery fallacy   particular case   lottery tickets  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.86  
  Sources: 5  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Earth’s sky    real numbersgod   precise solar eclipses possiblemy conclusion   exact size.God  
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
"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".
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: solar systems    billions galaxies   sufficient conditions   space of the necessary conditions  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
this stuff is more then fined tuned he measured some of this crud out when placing it
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.
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
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
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
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 11  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Earth’s sky    viewpoint of earth   exact size.the sun   real numbers  
  Relevant (Beta): 35%  
  Learn More About Debra
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"
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 34%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: zero evidence    mere child   things   claims  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 32%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: recent lab tests    capital G.Jesus   posts   heaven  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 49%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: heaven.My reply    reply   capital   headlines  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Blood test results of Jesus Christ.Then    scientific reports   planet Earth   knowledge of the tests.Look  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
dee
dee said
whats wrong with this
whats wrong with this claim?????
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 12  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: rich people    huge explosion   intelligent life form.we call   big bang  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: moon.All stars    fact suns   gravity   Stars  
  Relevant (Beta): 29%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is no way you are not a troll. I refuse to believe it.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: gravity    stars   moon   way  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
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
  Considerate: 3%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: foolish Troll    different level   Troll   idiot  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 49%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: infact whip    big ruler   moon moves   solar eclipses  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: product of a solar shadow of the earth    concept of solar flux   solar wind   moon  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is the Laniakea galactic supercluster. The red dot is our Milky Way galaxy. Did God create the entire Universe just for us?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Sure: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/vilenkins-cosmic-vision-a-review-essay-of-many-worlds-in-one-the-search-for#:~:text=it is vastly,an equilibrium state.
You can also see the William Lane Craig v Penrose debate
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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])."
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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 sounds like gibberish.
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 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.
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
With such a brilliant argument you completely obliterated my position, sir.
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.
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.
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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..
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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?
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
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:
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.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra