Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → The Quest for Truth: Balance.

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 09:03 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 09:50 AM
What's happened to the fo...
October 06, 2025, 11:58 AM
New Britain
October 05, 2025, 08:07 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
October 05, 2025, 07:55 AM
Kashmir endgame
October 04, 2025, 10:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
October 04, 2025, 09:23 AM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
October 02, 2025, 12:03 PM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
September 24, 2025, 11:55 AM
Muslim grooming gangs sti...
September 20, 2025, 07:39 PM
Jesus mythicism
by zeca
September 13, 2025, 10:59 PM
Orientalism - Edward Said
by zeca
August 22, 2025, 07:41 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Quest for Truth: Balance.

 (Read 26996 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #60 - July 22, 2010, 02:56 PM
    Quote from: TheRationalizer on July 22, 2010, 02:25 PM
    One scientific theory explains how the vacuum energy spontaneously splits into matter/anti-matter all around us all of the time, but gravity then pulls them together and they convert back into energy.  Hawkins theorised that because anti-matter is heavier than matter any occurrence close the the event horizon of a black hole would result in the matter escaping and the anti-matter being pulled into the black hole; this anti-matter would make the black hole less dense and over time would result in the black hole exploding and releasing its matter into the universe.  If I understand correctly this has now been observed in the form of black hole radiation.

    I don't think it would be too far fetched to think that some derivative of this (where matter clumps together) could build up over a very long time forming an incredibly massive black hole which eventually would explode and create a universe.  Once the matter in our universe has spread out and died its cold death there will be nothing but a massive empty space for this to happen again - it could already be happening elsewhere.

    I don't think the "cause" of the expansion is beyond us, I think we will discover it within my lifetime (Insha anna) Smiley

    What the cause the vacuum energy is though is a much tougher question I suspect.





    I think you are describing Hawking radiation if i'm not mistaken but i'm not sure how applicable it is to current thinking in inflationary cosmology. Currently it is proposed that an inflation feild that feeds of gravity was a responsible mechanism for the initial inflation - but it's not known if inflation feilds that can feed of gravity can even exist. Certainly nothing is known about how a hypothetical inflation feild would be triggered.
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #61 - July 22, 2010, 03:34 PM
    Quote from: OAK on July 22, 2010, 07:21 AM
    Jinn

    The only definition of Atheisim I accept is " one who rejects belief in Gods". this definition says nothing about my beliefs only that I reject the beliefs of others.

    these "others" themselves also reject belief in more Gods then they accept belief in. Therefore everyone sic is an Athiest.

    I find the world as it is, without gods, far more scary then a world with Gods, theres nothing wrong with fear, fear sharpens us, it motivates and protects us.


    OH!  I agree with you 100%!  (re: fear of god keeping a semblence of order)
    I did have to cross that bridge of thought.  "What now?  what IS good/evil,
    what IS right/wrong?"   And currently evolving through these thought processes
    and my definition of morality;  I also realized that the change in my beliefs
    did NOT change my ideals of compassion, charity, forgiveness, or MOST of my
    morals, and conservatism.  My fascination with the paradixocal mystery
    known as "man" and desire to understand them hasnt changed either.  

    It has been an emotional roller coaster for sure, after having been a
    devout "Abrahamist"  for the better part of my life.  

    But there are NO clear cut lines to be able to stand firm and solid on
    ONE nametag.  AS hassan said, and i agree, I HATE labels.  Not every
    one fits neatly in a tidy little box.  Some of us draw outside the lines,
    and think OUTSIDE the box
    When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
    Helen Keller
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #62 - July 22, 2010, 03:55 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 02:45 PM
    I think you totally misunderstood. I didn't mean we have no right to ask it because God might get angry or whatever you were saying - what I was trying to say is that we don't know for sure if human logic/science can be applied to anything outside our own universe. For all we know science outside our universe may be completely different to the science that governs our universe  and what human logic is custom to. therefore although it's ok to ask anything and everything about things within our universe such as where did the energy that gave birth to our universe come from etc. i don't think it's sensible to ask where God came from etc. - for all we know he could have existed forever although this would be contradictory to the science and logic that we are used to. there is no way we can make any intelligent statements about anything outside our universe - including the nature of God and how and why he exists (if he does indeed exist) - everything is mere speculation.


    Then maybe you shouldn't say that we have no right.  Perhaps instead you meant "We may have no way of ever knowing", but then if you can dismiss investigation into creator god based on the assumption that the laws which government us do not apply to it then you could also say that if some other universe created our universe it is likely it had different laws too and we should therefore not investigate that either.

    There's nothing wrong with investigation.  Not investigating on the other hand has lots wrong with it.


    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 02:56 PM
    I think you are describing Hawking radiation if i'm not mistaken but i'm not sure how applicable it is to current thinking in inflationary cosmology. Currently it is proposed that an inflation feild that feeds of gravity was a responsible mechanism for the initial inflation - but it's not known if inflation feilds that can feed of gravity can even exist. Certainly nothing is known about how a hypothetical inflation feild would be triggered.


    Yes, I was talking about Hawking radiation.  I wasn't presenting it as a theory or even a hypothesis for inflation (the cause of which is still unknown).  I was simply pointing out that there appears to be already observed instances of matter spontaneously popping into existence.

    In summary though, there is still nothing which points either conclusively to a creator god OR to nature.  In the meantime "We don't yet know" is the only correct answer, lest we be mocked by future generations as we now mock the ancient Greeks Smiley
    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #63 - July 22, 2010, 03:56 PM
    Quote from: Tlaloc on July 22, 2010, 10:09 AM
    Agnosticism is about what is (currently and not currently) knowable, not what is currently known.

    The given definition doesn't claim it's exclusively about what's currently known.


    Quote from: Tlaloc on July 22, 2010, 10:09 AM
    You probably quoted that from wikipedia.

    But if you follow the wikipedia source for that statement you will get this: http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html

    I have no idea why they worded it like that on wikipedia :S


    The Wikipedia entry provides a more broad definition.

    I just looked up the definition of agnostic in several dictionaries, and most include believing it's impossible to know.

    I guess I'm not truly agnostic following those definitions.


    The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy seems to go along better with what you're saying:

    Quote
    ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.

    Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#3

    "Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
    - Robert Louis Stevenson
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #64 - July 22, 2010, 04:26 PM
    Quote from: TheRationalizer on July 22, 2010, 03:55 PM
    Then maybe you shouldn't say that we have no right.  Perhaps instead you meant "We may have no way of ever knowing", but then if you can dismiss investigation into creator god based on the assumption that the laws which government us do not apply to it then you could also say that if some other universe created our universe it is likely it had different laws too and we should therefore not investigate that either.

    There's nothing wrong with investigation.  Not investigating on the other hand has lots wrong with it.


    Ok perhaps I should have phrased it differently - but i did actually try to explain what I meant in the same paragraph in which I said it. Of course i didn't say that we shouldn't investigate (of course the more we investigate the better) - what I was saying is that at present it is not wise to assume that the existence of a God (if he exists) has to conform to the science of our Universe and human logic - it might be possible that He is a complex and intelligent being that has existed forever without being created.


    Quote
    I was simply pointing out that there appears to be already observed instances of matter spontaneously popping into existence.




    Yes according to quantum theory indvidual particles can pop into existance here and there in our Universe in a random manner. Whether this aspect of quantum theory is important for our knowledge of inflationary cosmology I'm not sure. Although I do suspect that quantum theory will play a huge role in our understanding of the birth of our universe.


    Quote
    In summary though, there is still nothing which points either conclusively to a creator god OR to nature.  In the meantime "We don't yet know" is the only correct answer, lest we be mocked by future generations as we now mock the ancient Greeks


    Agreed  Smiley

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #65 - July 22, 2010, 05:09 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 04:26 PM
    what I was saying is that at present it is not wise to assume that the existence of a God (if he exists) has to conform to the science of our Universe and human logic


    Creator god is no exception so doesn't really deserve special mention.  To assume that anything outside of our universe is bound by the rules of our universe would be a mistake - but these "things" could be absolutely anything, and might have had absolutely no interaction with our universe.


    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 04:26 PM
    it might be possible that He is a complex and intelligent being that has existed forever without being created.


    And the same is true for the universe, it might be the case that we observe the beginning of what is merely its CURRENT configuration.  I don't assume either an infinite creator god or an infinite universe, I just accept that nobody knows.  Importantly, NOBODY knows.



    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 04:26 PM
    Agreed  Smiley


    Good lad, you know it makes sense Smiley
    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #66 - July 22, 2010, 05:19 PM


    grin12
    German ex-Muslim forum — My YouTube — List of Ex-Muslims —
    Wikis: en – de – fr – ar – tr
    CEMB-Chat
    I'm on an indefinite break...
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #67 - July 22, 2010, 05:22 PM
    Quote from: Aziz on July 22, 2010, 05:19 PM
    (Clicky for piccy!)

    grin12


    Yep  Afro
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #68 - July 22, 2010, 05:25 PM
    I actually had a similar conversation with Zebedee recently - he was arguing that the fine-tuning argument is not a good indication of God because if we assume God is omnipotent then he wouldn't need to fine-tune the Universe (i.e. so that stars and planets could form and that Carbon and other naturally occuring elements could form). While I agree that our Universe appears to be fine tuned for the formation of stars and planets and formation of naturaly occuring elements (i.e. I'm not talking about planets being fine-tuned for life etc. but talking about the universe being fine tuned for the existence of stars, planets, carbon etc themselves) - I don't think this is proof for God. However my argument would be that although it's sensible to ask how come our universe appears so fine-tuned, it is not sensible to ask why or whether an Omnipotent God would have created the Universe in this way. We cannot make any logical statements about God and why he would choose to create a Universe in the manner in which he did (if he did). Maybe he wanted to create a Universe with fine tuned scientific parameters which is governed and evolves by scientific laws he created. Why on earth should we assume he wouldn't do this - I'm not necessarily saying he would do this - but we can not make an intelligent comment either way - none of us can read the mind of God (although Einstein often said he wanted to, lol).
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #69 - July 22, 2010, 05:36 PM
    Quote from: TheRationalizer on July 22, 2010, 05:09 PM
    Creator god is no exception so doesn't really deserve special mention.  To assume that anything outside of our universe is bound by the rules of our universe would be a mistake - but these "things" could be absolutely anything, and might have had absolutely no interaction with our universe.



    Agreed, but since this started of as a discussion about God...


    Quote
    And the same is true for the universe, it might be the case that we observe the beginning of what is merely its CURRENT configuration.  I don't assume either an infinite creator god or an infinite universe, I just accept that nobody knows.  Importantly, NOBODY knows.


    Ok
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #70 - July 22, 2010, 06:31 PM
    if one doesn't believe in the biblical or quranic god, i think that self identifying as an atheist is the most pragmatic thing to do, since a large chunk of the world is talking about a quranic / biblical god really. large chunk = middle east\americas\europe.

    things can obviously get more nuanced at a philosophical level using other definitions of god.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #71 - July 22, 2010, 06:56 PM
    s12345   Trying verbalize an analogy:  kind of reminds me of satellite weather images.
    you watch the clouds, storms, clear weather, etc, constantly moving and
    changing.  thats how my introspection is like when considering my beliefs
    and dismissals of philosophies and ideologies, currently.  I cannot commit
    absolutely to any school of thought, EXCEPT that I no longer believe the
    abrahamic sky daddy exists.
    When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
    Helen Keller
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #72 - July 22, 2010, 06:59 PM
    Quote from: OAK on July 21, 2010, 05:47 PM
    There are philosophical debates about agnosticism and atheism but these are not for day to day chats about religion.

    It is absolutely acceptable to say that you are certain there is no god, just as it is acceptable to say that you are certain there is no teapot orbiting mars or that you are certain the sun will rise tomorrow.

    The concepts of gods are ridiculous and I am certain they do not exist because they contradict the laws of nature. I do not need to look under every rock in the farthest reaches of the universe to know that gods do not exist, omnipotence is a ridiculous concept.

    Agnostics are pussies.


    I join this debate fresh from a fishing holiday.
     YAY Oak, tell it like it is. Atheism is what it means - NO BELIEF.  
    EVIDENCE provides the basis for knowledge and by manipulating testable knowledge we improve our Universal view: not on fairy tales originally designed to fill in gaps in our burgeoning consciousness.
    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #73 - July 22, 2010, 07:02 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on July 21, 2010, 10:04 PM
    As an agnostic I probably go oine step further, I am actually gnostic atheist against Abrahmic God.  

    I can say that I know that, given its long lists of contradiction, scientific inaccuracies & philosophocial faux-pas contained in my blog.  

    However my position remains agnostic atheist with regards to a creator God.

    Splittest!
    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #74 - July 22, 2010, 07:16 PM
    Quote from: Abood on July 22, 2010, 06:08 AM
    Even Socrates admitted to knowing nothing, so you must be really damn arrogant to think not only that you know something, but everything.

    Yes, the ultimate truth is unknowable. If it weren't, science wouldn't exist. After all, it operates under the belief that there's always something more out there to be discovered (Read: Black Swan Phenomenon).

    The flaws in your argument are inherent.
    Give us some evidence that there is such a thing as 'the ultimate truth' or explain why such a potential phenomenon is even desirable. Your second assertion is ridiculous: Science, as it is currently developing would exist anyway because it doesn't have an endpoint in mind - it's just a way of finding things out about the Multiverse and , co-incidentally, is debunking a lot of myths ( ie old 'knowledge') along the way.
    Your third sentence is about belief. We now have evidence based methods of viewing the way things are. We don't need to adhere to or to make up fairy stories anymore.
    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #75 - July 22, 2010, 07:50 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 05:25 PM
    (i.e. I'm not talking about planets being fine-tuned for life etc. but talking about the universe being fine tuned for the existence of stars, planets, carbon etc themselves)

    In that case what is Venus, the blazing furnace of a planet fine-tuned for?

    Given that their are zillions of planets, my guess is that each one by sheer probability would appear to be fine tuned for something or other.  For earth it is life as we know it.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #76 - July 22, 2010, 07:56 PM
    Venus was fine-tuned to destroy russian landing craft.  Afro
    Quote from: thinkfree on September 28, 2010, 07:58 PM
    Iblis has mad debaterin' skillz. Best not step up unless you're prepared to recieve da pain.

  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #77 - July 22, 2010, 07:57 PM
    you didn't get his point. he is talking about the fundamental constants argument.

    i don't know enough physics to know what the fine tuning of constants is supposed to mean, but i have seen a video of steven weinberg take the argument seriously, which gives me pause.

    if anyone, he understands the fine tuning of physical constants argument.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #78 - July 22, 2010, 08:16 PM
    I thought the fundamental constants argument applied to the earth, and not the universe.  Excuse my ignorance if I am wrong.
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #79 - July 22, 2010, 08:17 PM
    it applies to the universe. you can watch the dawkins interviews weinberg video on youtube for a short idea of what it means. they discuss it towards the end of the video.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #80 - July 22, 2010, 08:37 PM
    Yeah a common mistake that people sometimes make is that the fine tuning argument is concerning how conditions were just right for life to occur on earth/pllanets etc. - as I indicated eralier this is not the case - the fine tuning argument has to do with the Universe. I discussed this on here before:

    Quote
    If the values of numerous different constants varied even by a tiny fraction stars and galaxies and even elements such as carbon would not form and there would not be any potential for life. For example if the force of gravity was a bit higher, then after the big bang the universe would have 'ended' in a big crunch rather quickly. If it was a bit weaker, atoms would not have collected into stars and galaxies. If the strong nuclear force were slightly stronger even hydrogen atoms would not be able to form, and if it was slighltly weaker stable stars would not form. If the relationship between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force was off even by a very very tiny fraction heavier elements such as carbon would not form. These are but just a few examples


    Quote
    For example if the charge of the electron was different by a very tiny fraction stars would not be able shine. In addition if the energies of the big bang were off by a tiny tiny fraction (i.e. we are talking about 100 decimal places) there would be no life in the universe. These are just 2 examples but there are many more.


    If you want to know more, I recommend 'Just six numbers' written by Sir Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal and Professor at Cambridge University). He is an Atheist but a strong proponent of multiverse theories
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #81 - July 22, 2010, 08:59 PM
    @abu : does martin rees talk about the fine tuning argument at length too or does he just describe the cosmological constants?

    why does he opt for the multi verse theory?
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #82 - July 22, 2010, 09:08 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 08:37 PM
    Yeah a common mistake that people sometimes make is that the fine tuning argument is concerning how conditions were just right for life to occur on earth/pllanets etc. - as I indicated eralier this is not the case - the fine tuning argument has to do with the Universe. I discussed this on here before:

    If you want to know more, I recommend 'Just six numbers' written by Sir Martin Rees (Astronomer Royal and Professor at Cambridge University). He is an Atheist but a strong proponent of multiverse theories

    I see.  But it doesnt really affect the way I see things.  I guess its because there may be infinite universes that we are not even aware of (I dont know if this has anything to do with multiverse theory as I have never looked into it), the ones that we might be aware of are those that have these constants.

    The way I see it is if it were not for those constants something else would exist.  If not we would have nothing.  So?
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #83 - July 22, 2010, 09:14 PM
    Quote
    @abu : does martin rees talk about the fine tuning argument at length too or does he just describe the cosmological constants?

    why does he opt for the multi verse theory



    he discusses both but mainly talks about the constants. he opts for the multiverse theory presumably because it is the one realistic* plausible way we can get round the fine tuning argument which disposes of the apparent need for an intelligent creator i.e. if there happened to be gazillions and gazillions and gazillions of universes then the statiscal likelihood of our universe with all the constants just right for formation of stars etc. occuring by chance would be much higher.

    *Although many physicists such as Rees take this possibility very seriously other leading physicists do not like the idea at all: for the one reason that we can not make any observations outside our Universe hence we can not ever know if these other Universes actually exist (it can't be tested scientifically) - therefore some have even argued that the speculation by Rees about mutiverses should not be considered scientific speculation at all but perhaps just philosophical wonderings. My personal veiw is that even though it may be true we can not make sensible comments about whether these other universes may exist or not - that doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist - we'll just never know whether they do or not - a bit like God, lol
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #84 - July 22, 2010, 09:23 PM
    hmmm, what about people who say its just the anthropic principle in a different garb or indeed like victor stenger who says that the space of constants which affords construction of a universe similar to ours (with stars) isn't that small at all.

    i personally agree with islame that its really a so-what thing. so what if the universe would've ended in a big crunch a billionth of a second after formation by moving the constants a bit. i don't think the constants need any explanation at all.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #85 - July 22, 2010, 09:24 PM
    oh, and multi verses do sound like unscientific speculation.

    EDIT :

    they're still not as ludicrous as the idea of some hidden agent setting the knobs just right.
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #86 - July 22, 2010, 09:27 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 05:25 PM
    While I agree that our Universe appears to be fine tuned for the formation of stars and planets


    Or the formation of stars and planets is finely tuned to match the universe Smiley


    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 05:25 PM
    it's sensible to ask how come our universe appears so fine-tuned, it is not sensible to ask why or whether an Omnipotent God would have created the Universe in this way.


    Of course the "can't be bothered to think" people approach this question like so...
    Q: How come the universe is so finely tuned?
    A: Oh yes, good point, there MUST be a creator god!

    But with a little bit of thought here are my immediate counter questions...

    1: Could it be possible that no other configuration is possible?
    2: Are there other universes with craply tuned parameters?
    3: Have other craply tuned universes existed before our good one?
    4: Are there other variations which could also have worked?
    5: Are there better tuned universes because they support intelligent life etc but are not continually expanding so as one day to end in universal death?

    Point 5 alone smacks of imperfection.  What's perfect about a slow cold universal death?  Surely a steady-state universe would have been much better?  How come creator god had to make something happen which then created the universe (as would happen if it were a natural event) rather than just making it appear?  Perfection would be a universe that doesn't wither away and die.  This universe is perfectly tuned for death, how nice!


    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 05:25 PM
    We cannot make any logical statements about God and why he would choose to create a Universe in the manner in which he did (if he did).


    And you see that's the argument that religionists will use (not accusing you here).  Everything which looks good is perfectly designed, anything which looks shit is obviously good in some way that we cannot understand.  More likely that it's crap in bits because adhoc things are usually imperfect.

    Just food for thought....I hope Smiley
    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=30785
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #87 - July 22, 2010, 09:54 PM
    Quote
    Of course the "can't be bothered to think" people approach this question like so...
    Q: How come the universe is so finely tuned?
    A: Oh yes, good point, there MUST be a creator god!


    yeah i already said there are other possibilties and that the fine tuning argument isn't proof of God.

    Quote
    But with a little bit of thought here are my immediate counter questions...

    1: Could it be possible that no other configuration is possible?
    2: Are there other universes with craply tuned parameters?
    3: Have other craply tuned universes existed before our good one?
    4: Are there other variations which could also have worked?
    5: Are there better tuned universes because they support intelligent life etc but are not continually expanding so as one day to end in universal death


    Multiverse is possible (points 2-5) but according to string theory, other configurations should be equally possible as the configuration of our Universe (point 1)

    Quote
    And you see that's the argument that religionists will use (not accusing you here).  Everything which looks good is perfectly designed, anything which looks shit is obviously good in some way that we cannot understand.  More likely that it's crap in bits because adhoc things are usually imperfect


    in general the main distinction I'm making is what is knowable and what is unknowable. As far as we can tell things within our universe should in theory be knowable whereas we can not know about anything outside our own universe - when we talk about anything outside our universe it is mere speculation and nothing more (including why God may or may not have decided to create the Universe in this configuration)
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #88 - July 22, 2010, 10:17 PM
    Quote from: abuyunus2 on July 22, 2010, 09:54 PM

    in general the main distinction I'm making is what is knowable and what is unknowable. As far as we can tell things within our universe should in theory be knowable

    Theoretically speaking yes, but not in practice.  We are talking about 12 billion years ago, so we might never be practically able to piece together the entire jigsaw with that limitation. 
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: The Quest for Truth: Balance.
     Reply #89 - July 23, 2010, 12:39 AM
    and THEN there is the string theory!  Cheesy Cheesy

    (a 101 guide for non physicists and non scientists)

    http://superstringtheory.com/
    When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.
    Helen Keller
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 7 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »