This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Atheism and theism both face the same core question: why is there something rather than nothing?
Atheism: Something came from nothing - although physics largely is shifting from that view currently to what preceded the singularity. They may revert to something always existed. Why? It just does.
Theism: God always existed. Why? He just does.
Atheism: Something came from nothing - although physics largely is shifting from that view currently to what preceded the singularity. They may revert to something always existed. Why? It just does.
Theism: God always existed. Why? He just does.
1-25 of 27
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@TBIman I agree with you. According to physics, the odds of life, let along intelligent life, emerging from this universe are so incredibly low that they describe it as fine tuned for life. The 'anthropic principle'.[i] “Everything…bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.”[/i]*
Some physicists consider that there may be almost infinite multiverses and this is one of the few in which life developed - but although it's a reasonable proposition there is zero evidence for this belief.
Some physicists consider that there may be almost infinite multiverses and this is one of the few in which life developed - but although it's a reasonable proposition there is zero evidence for this belief.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Abstraction [quote]According to physics[/quote]
What does abiogenesis have to do with physics? (You should note that abiogenesis and atheism are two separate topics, so I’m unsure why you mention it here).
Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. Given the conditions on Earth over 4 billion years ago, it was all but inevitable that abiogenesis would occur.
What was not inevitable was that life [i]as we currently know it[/i] would occur. My parents were a fertile and fecund couple engaging in procreative behaviour. It was therefore extremely probable that they would conceive a child. What was stunningly unlikely was that they would conceive the particular child they eventually had... me.
But that is stunningly unlikely [i]only in hindsight,[/i] and using me as some sort of goal at the time. They were always going to have a baby in any case.
It’s the same with abiogenesis. it’s pointless to say that life as we have seen it on Earth is highly improbable, because it is highly probable that some form of life would have occurred, but at no point did it have to be the form of life that eventually occurred.
If the universe had been different, then a different form of life might have formed on Earth, but life nevertheless. Even with the same conditions, a different form of life might have formed on Earth.
The so-called Anthropic Principle merely says: ‘if things were not the same, things would be different'.
That’s merely trivial.
Again, what does this have to do with atheism?
What does abiogenesis have to do with physics? (You should note that abiogenesis and atheism are two separate topics, so I’m unsure why you mention it here).
Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. Given the conditions on Earth over 4 billion years ago, it was all but inevitable that abiogenesis would occur.
What was not inevitable was that life [i]as we currently know it[/i] would occur. My parents were a fertile and fecund couple engaging in procreative behaviour. It was therefore extremely probable that they would conceive a child. What was stunningly unlikely was that they would conceive the particular child they eventually had... me.
But that is stunningly unlikely [i]only in hindsight,[/i] and using me as some sort of goal at the time. They were always going to have a baby in any case.
It’s the same with abiogenesis. it’s pointless to say that life as we have seen it on Earth is highly improbable, because it is highly probable that some form of life would have occurred, but at no point did it have to be the form of life that eventually occurred.
If the universe had been different, then a different form of life might have formed on Earth, but life nevertheless. Even with the same conditions, a different form of life might have formed on Earth.
The so-called Anthropic Principle merely says: ‘if things were not the same, things would be different'.
That’s merely trivial.
Again, what does this have to do with atheism?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Abstraction Incidentally, you might note that in our galaxy we see 100 billion stars, and in the observable universe we see 200 billion galaxies.
We now know that most stars have planets orbiting them, and given the somewhat basic conditions necessary for abiogenesis, your claim of low odds for life emerging anywhere in the universe is questionable, at best.
We now know that most stars have planets orbiting them, and given the somewhat basic conditions necessary for abiogenesis, your claim of low odds for life emerging anywhere in the universe is questionable, at best.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 I draw 'my' claim from listening to some of the world's best physicists of all kinds of persuasions, which I do regularly. Question them. It's their 'claim'. I assure you they are aware of the size of the universe when they make those kinds of statements.
BlueSkyKing · M
@Abstraction If it happened once (here) it happened and will happen elsewhere.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Abstraction Why would any physicist hold forth about abiogenesis? It’s outside of their field, and they cannot speak with authority.
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Abstraction Yup. That's about it.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 I didn't mention or refer to abiogenesis at all. You raised that and then started arguing with me about it - but I wasn't talking about it. I'm not sure why you are reacting to what I wrote - unless you have a bias coming to play because you think I'm somehow promoting faith. I'm genuinely just talking physics.
Fine tuning is physics, that the slightest change in a wide range of constants - and they are 'highly improbable numbers' as it is - it would mean firstly life (as we know it) couldn't occur or if some constants shifted slightly there would not be matter at all.
Given the mathematical improbability of this (and the work by Hoyle and others is generally accepted now), if we throw abiogenesis which you raised in this then adds further improbability.
This draws no conclusions about [u]why [/u]the universe exists but it should fill any feeling human being with a sense of wonder. The fact that life is so incredibly complex and the conditions so fraught should make us appreciate life and this amazing planet.
My references were both primarily physics:
Fine tuning and the
Anthropic principle -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/26/how-the-anthropic-principle-became-the-most-abused-idea-in-science/?sh=66d376ac7d69
Fine tuning is physics, that the slightest change in a wide range of constants - and they are 'highly improbable numbers' as it is - it would mean firstly life (as we know it) couldn't occur or if some constants shifted slightly there would not be matter at all.
Given the mathematical improbability of this (and the work by Hoyle and others is generally accepted now), if we throw abiogenesis which you raised in this then adds further improbability.
This draws no conclusions about [u]why [/u]the universe exists but it should fill any feeling human being with a sense of wonder. The fact that life is so incredibly complex and the conditions so fraught should make us appreciate life and this amazing planet.
My references were both primarily physics:
Fine tuning and the
Anthropic principle -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/26/how-the-anthropic-principle-became-the-most-abused-idea-in-science/?sh=66d376ac7d69
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Abstraction You referred to the odds of life emerging.
That’s abiogenesis
Fine tuning refers to what? The emergence of life, yes?
That’s abiogenesis
That’s abiogenesis
Fine tuning refers to what? The emergence of life, yes?
That’s abiogenesis
TBIman · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 I don't know, to both of your questions.
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 If you want to be technical, abiogenesis is [i]specifically [/i]about the transition from non-life to life and I wasn't referring to that.
Physicists talk about both the anthropic principle (anthropos Greek for man - [i]"anthropic principle, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life"[/i]) and the bearing of fine tuning on this in the context of the odds of life and human life forming from the point of the beginnings of the universe. So I was correct in the use of my terms in referring to life and specifically made the anthropic principle reference to be clear of its relationship to fine tuning.
I like a discussion but don't enjoy back and forth quibbling. My initial point was correct. My subsequent response was correct. I've clarified yet again. What are you trying to win here? What's your point?
Physicists talk about both the anthropic principle (anthropos Greek for man - [i]"anthropic principle, in cosmology, any consideration of the structure of the universe, the values of the constants of nature, or the laws of nature that has a bearing upon the existence of life"[/i]) and the bearing of fine tuning on this in the context of the odds of life and human life forming from the point of the beginnings of the universe. So I was correct in the use of my terms in referring to life and specifically made the anthropic principle reference to be clear of its relationship to fine tuning.
I like a discussion but don't enjoy back and forth quibbling. My initial point was correct. My subsequent response was correct. I've clarified yet again. What are you trying to win here? What's your point?
TBIman · 41-45, M
@Abstraction Where did the laws of nature come from?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Abstraction a bearing upon the existence of life
You cannot divorce the Anthropic Principle from life... it has meaning without incorporating life.
Because life on Earth is a given, all that can be said is that life as we see it is a consequence of the conditions in this universe.
How could it be otherwise... life was shaped by the conditions in this universe.
The universe wasn’t shaped to allow life.
So, ultimately, the Anthropic Principle is trivial.
You cannot divorce the Anthropic Principle from life... it has meaning without incorporating life.
Because life on Earth is a given, all that can be said is that life as we see it is a consequence of the conditions in this universe.
How could it be otherwise... life was shaped by the conditions in this universe.
The universe wasn’t shaped to allow life.
So, ultimately, the Anthropic Principle is trivial.
TBIman · 41-45, M
@newjaninev2 Dude, all life here comes from one source. Call it whatever you want, but that source most certainly exists.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 . There is no implication in the choice of term anthropic principle by those who used it that the universe was 'shaped' (if by that you mean non-random) to allow life. It was coined by a physicist who was [i]not specifically referring[/i] to abiogenesis but his own field of physics and the set of constants and other things that precede any possibility of abiogenesis. So that's the scope I was using when I referred to physicists and I chose to use the terms they use.
Agree that to truly work out the odds of life beginning you would need to account for abiogenesis as well and the conditions required for it to occur. That adds to the quite astounding odds calculated by several physicists and widely accepted by those who lead in this field but they didn't include it (to my disappointment I might add) I assume because it isn't their field.
For life to eventuate there was a series of very big processes and conditions that had to be a certain way and abiogenesis is not the starting point. So I was referring to the work of physicists that [u]precedes [/u]any possibility of abiogenesis. There would be no abiogenesis without chemistry. There would be no chemistry without the universe creating a set of very specific universal constants - in fact there would be no matter at all, so no universe as we comprehend it. This is the domain of physicists and what I was referring to. Abiogenesis could only occur after the entire first generation of stars had time to create more complex atomic structures which were not possible in the early universe. Even then, we only so far know of one instance of life commencing and only it only occurred once even though we are on this incredible planet with perfect conditions. You'd think we could cook it up in a laboratory since we know what the 'extremely simple' chemicals are but still haven't really fully managed. I expect we will eventually.
Agree that to truly work out the odds of life beginning you would need to account for abiogenesis as well and the conditions required for it to occur. That adds to the quite astounding odds calculated by several physicists and widely accepted by those who lead in this field but they didn't include it (to my disappointment I might add) I assume because it isn't their field.
For life to eventuate there was a series of very big processes and conditions that had to be a certain way and abiogenesis is not the starting point. So I was referring to the work of physicists that [u]precedes [/u]any possibility of abiogenesis. There would be no abiogenesis without chemistry. There would be no chemistry without the universe creating a set of very specific universal constants - in fact there would be no matter at all, so no universe as we comprehend it. This is the domain of physicists and what I was referring to. Abiogenesis could only occur after the entire first generation of stars had time to create more complex atomic structures which were not possible in the early universe. Even then, we only so far know of one instance of life commencing and only it only occurred once even though we are on this incredible planet with perfect conditions. You'd think we could cook it up in a laboratory since we know what the 'extremely simple' chemicals are but still haven't really fully managed. I expect we will eventually.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Abstraction There are plenty of scientists who are also religious of any faith (not only Christianity) but I doubt [i]anyone [/i]- religious, agnostic, atheist (SW is too shallowly binary there!); philosopher, professional cosmologist, interested lay person or barely knowing the basic nature of energy - can possibly answer [i]"Why?"[/i]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@ArishMell Theists merely beg the question.
Their conclusion relies upon a proposition at the start, but they have not established a basis for that proposition.
Without establishing that intent is even possible, it becomes meaningless to ask for the motive behind that intent.
Their conclusion relies upon a proposition at the start, but they have not established a basis for that proposition.
Without establishing that intent is even possible, it becomes meaningless to ask for the motive behind that intent.
1-25 of 27