Science Vs. Atheism (ritual, Creator, Darwin, Moses, Deist)

[chuck010342]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

For now, I think atheism is not a belief--scientifically, it remains the status quo--theists are the ones who speculate on what might be without any evidence in support.

just a quick observation.

If atheism is not a belief then why do you hold it?

also

Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel prize recipient said, “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
Reply With Quote

seems like a good proof.

[meogi]

If atheism is not a belief then why do you hold it?

Because indifference is atheistic.

“The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

There's math in the bible concerning the big bang? How many of the early interpretors of the bible figured creation was a sudden expansion of space? Surely one of them would have come up with the idea if it was so obvious...

Yes, once we knew about the big bang, it could be correlated as such in the bible... if the bible was the only thing to go on, however...

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by chuck010342

just a quick observation.
If atheism is not a belief then why do you hold it?

Your "observation" is off topic

also

Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel prize recipient said, “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
Reply With Quote

seems like a good proof.

Gee, that's funny! Penzias stood on all the shoulders of the scientist that went before him. I bet he didn't use one verse from the Bible to earn his Nobel Prize. It really amazing how a retrofit can be taken as proof - it's not even evidence, Chuck

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by chuck010342

just a quick observation.

If atheism is not a belief then why do you hold it?

That's like asking "If baldness is not a hairstyle then why do you comb it?"

Originally Posted by chuck

Arno Penzias, co-discoverer of the microwave background radiation and 1978 Nobel prize recipient said, “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
Reply With Quote

seems like a good proof.

Not everything a scientist says is (or must be) scientific. If Arno Penzias wants to believe that, that's nice, but I'll reserve judgement if and when he publishes his Bible As a Whole is Good at Predicting the Cosmic Backround Radiation theory in a peer-reviewed journal.

Wait, nevermind....it's all right there in the Book of Microwave Backround Radiation. Wavelengths, red-shift, spectrum....it's all right there. There's even something about water above a firmament....wait, that part's crossed out.

[ch'ang]

Dang this is a long thread

This does not mean that the particle is in two places at once

Yes it does until you observe a particel it is in every possible place that it can be in at once. Also just becuase the chances of a universe like this is unlikely does not mean that someone/thing created it. It clearly defies occam's razor because then god himself needs explaining. Also it has been proven that there are an infinite amount of universes becasue of the need to explain QM in real terms and not just mathmatical, it works like this in my statement before everything exists in a probability feild and once it is observed it collapes into a here and now particeland then we get into the paradox of Schrodinger's cat, lets say that i put a cat in a box completely isolated from interaction with the rest of the universe and i put a cat and a gun in there. Also atached to the gun is a machine that pulls the trigger when a specific quantum event accurs (it does'nt matter pick what everone you like.) So now whenever i open the box the cat will either be dead or a alive but until we open the box the cat nor the gun is in no particular state so wwe technicaly have two boxs one with a dead cat and one a live cat. This uncertianty has created two different universes one where the cat is alive and one where it is dead, when there is uncertianty all possible quantum events are occuring in other unvierses so we don't have dead and alive cats. This means that every possible version of reality has and is happening makeing the number of unverses infinite and if you are dealing with that many universes then you will eventually find one that supports life. Therefore your statement that the universe is so finely tuned menas there has to be a god is proven null.
Sorry if that was a little incoherent but its around 1:30 AM and for some reason I am still up, i will fix it latter if anyone wants me to.

[michel]

I think the opening statement of orthodox's post;- "The purpose of this posting is to demonstrate the unscientific nature of atheistic belief"




Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astrophysicist, was forced to concede that “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this question almost beyond question.”

Stephen Hawking, a staunch anti-atheist, said, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

The above two paragraphs are the only two that have some validity; from a theist's point of view I can say"There you go, told you all along"...............

From an Atheist's point of view, I reckon that is taking coincidence a bit too far.

[anders]

Originally Posted by michel

Stephen Hawking, a staunch anti-atheist, said, “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

It is intresting to turn that belief on its head.

The anthropic principle states that the fact that there are human beings can be used as an explanation in physics, that this fact can explain the values of physical constants and why the laws of physics are as they are.

Another quote from the same course in philosophy at the university of Gothenburg, taught by profesors of physics, include

Observers are necessary to bring the universe into being.

The course material refers extensively to people like Einstein, Bohr, Feynman and Dirac, so it's not just another play with words. I haven't taken the course yet, so I can't answer any questions or engage in a debate. Should you feel inclined to look into it, a start among the 88 000 Internet hits may be here.

[michel]

Your link reads:-Proponents and versions

Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the basic physical constants were different, then life as we know it would not be possible. Papers have been written arguing that the anthropic principle would explain the physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the number of dimensions in the universe, and the cosmological constant.

The three primary versions of the principle, as stated by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (1986), are:

• Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
• Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."
• Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."

(O.K forget the WAP, and concentrate on the SAP and FAP) - besides, for each theory about abstracts, as you know, there is a counter -theory; quote Mr_Spinkles from above:-
"Not everything a scientist says is (or must be) scientific. If Arno Penzias wants to believe that, that's nice, but I'll reserve judgement if and when he publishes his Bible As a Whole is Good at Predicting the Cosmic Backround Radiation theory in a peer-reviewed journal.

Wait, nevermind....it's all right there in the Book of Microwave Backround Radiation. Wavelengths, red-shift, spectrum....it's all right there. There's even something about water above a firmament....wait, that part's crossed out."

An example is that when stephenson made hios 'rocket' he was warned that people would die is transportes at any speed over (Ithink) 20 mph, because they would be incapable of breathing.................

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Orthodox

About one hundred years ago scientists began to unravel a number of cosmological coincidences, named ‘cosmological constants’. These ‘constants’ were named so because it was immediately apparent that while they were all independent of each other, each one is absolutely necessary for life. Martin Rees, a colleague of Stephen Hawking’s at Cambridge, noted, “The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values of a few basic, physical constants and is in some respects remarkably sensitive to their numerical values. Nature does exhibit some remarkable coincidences.” The effect of these ‘constants’, coupled with the onset of comprehensive physical theories about the universe, has been the death knell of sophisticated scientific atheism.

Let's try an example.

let's imagine, if we will, that there are a large number of boxes. Each of these boxes are different. Some are made of wood, some made of iron. Some are small, some are large. Some are airtight, others aren't. Some are filled with breathable air, others aren't. Some are filled completely with water, others are complete vacuum. Some a freezing, others have temperatures in the thousands of degrees.

let's also imagine that people are in these boxes.

Now, many of these people will die, through drowning, or suffocation, or simply because the box is way too small.

But some will be suitable for people to live in. They will contain a breathable atmosphere, be the right temperature, large enough, etc. And the people in these boxes will say, "Isn't it amazing that this box has everything we need to survive."

Any box where this question will be asked IS a box where conditions are right. After all, if the conditions are not right, then there wouldn't be any people inside to ask it.

Likewise, if (as suggested in recent scientific ideas) this universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, then we are in exactly the same position as the people in the box.

in short, it's quite possible that universes with every possible combination and value for these constants exist, and this hapens to be one of those universes where conditions were suitable for some sort of life.