Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Sup

[DeLamar.J]

This article is long but it explains alot of things about the posibillity of there actually being a god or surpreme being that desighned the universe.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html

 

[Flatlander]

I'm still working my way through it, but the author seems to be premising the argument for a creative designer based on this proposition:

This is either a truly amazing series of coincidences or else the result of careful design.

I must admit, the author does a great job of detailing just how improbable our existence is, but in an infinite universe, there are infinite possibilities. On this point, the argument seems to be susceptible to a switch - Though the necessary and sufficient conditions for our existence are improbable, given that the conditions are as they are, the probability of our existence increases significantly.

 

[DeLamar.J]

It really is impossible for all those things to happen by chance. So many things that we need to survive just happining by chance over and over, no way. I will be pondering this all day now. :erg:

 

[Touch Of Death]

The proof is indirect. Chuck Mistler likes to push these situations as proof and no matter how winning these seem they don't prove anything other than there is a lot we don't fathom.
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

The article is premised on the assumption that the universe was created to support 21st century human beings. That ego-centric assumption is the downfall of the article, in my opinion.

Needs Statement for a Habitat Place in the Suitable Universe for Complex, Conscious Life

An abbreviated, but illustrative, list of additional requirements must be specified for a place of habitation in this universe. First, we need a star that is located in a relatively "quiet" region of the universe (e.g., not too many neighbors that are producing high intensity, sterilizing radiation). This star needs to have its highest intensity of radiation in the range that is suitable to drive the chemical reactions essential to life without destroying the products of these reactions. Furthermore, this star needs to have a very special satellite within its solar system. A partial list of the requirements this satellite must meet include:

• a planet or moon that is terrestrial--or, solid rather than gaseous;
• a temperature range suitable to maintain the universal solvent as a liquid rather than a solid or gas;
• just the right concentration of heavy (radioactive) elements to heat the core of the planet and provide the necessary energy to drive plate tectonics, to build up land mass in what would otherwise be a smooth, round planet completely covered with solvent;
• just the right amount of solvent (carefully coupled to the plate tectonics activity) to provide a planet with similar proportions of its surfaces as oceans and land mass;
• just the right protection from the destructive forces in nature such as radiation and asteroids over a reasonable amount of time; and
• just the right stabilized axis tilt and angular velocity to give moderate, regular, and predictable seasons and moderate temperature fluctuations from day to night.

Why does 'Complex, Concious Life' require land masses balanced against liquid areas on a planet?
Why does 'Complex, Concious Life' require predictable seasons and moderate temperature fluctuations from day to night?
Why does 'Complex, Concious Life' require days and nights?

If we assume that we are the point of the universe, then, perhaps, this 'Needs Statement' is accurate. But, that is an awfully big assumption, for such an insignificant species, on an unremarkable planet, located in an obscure section of one small galaxy in an amazingly wonderous and beautiful universe.

But, like Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Mike

 

[Baoquan]

The anthropic teleological argument is old, and in my opinion, flawed.

The (anthropic) idea that our existance is the purpose of the universe is (a) preposterous and (b) highly arrogant.

As for the teleological argument, which can be formulated very basically as:

1. Design requires a designer
2. Everything in the universe displays design in its inherent nature.
3. Therefore everything in the universe was designed by a designer.
4. Therefore there is a designer (call it God).

Both of the two premises (1 and 2) are problematic, but the second much more so than the first.

The belief in the second premise arises from science. Our understanding of so many things in the universe, the success of science and logic, can fool us into believing that the universe has an elegant design to it - science is the uncovering of the "rules" of this design. However, it seems more plausible to suggest that the rules we uncover aren't rules of design, but rules we "make up" in order to describe the universe. We may be able to make a direct correspondence between the objects of our formal language that we use to formulate science, and the objects and phenomena of the natural universe. But this does not entail that the sentences of our formal language correspond to a rule of design of the natural universe.

Finally - we are looking at the problem of existance from a priveleged perspective - we see the chain of events which result in our existance, and it looks pretty damn unlikely - even impossible. But if you look at each step as one small success that occured while countless millions failed - well, then it's just a question of how much "sample space" we have to count the probability against. The universe is awfully big, and provides a LOT of sample space. If the universe is (or universes are) infinite, its not only plausible that we happened by chance, but necessary that we happen...and happen an infinite number of times.

Personally, i dont *know* if there is a God or not - i'm rationally agnostic - but this particular argument for the existance of god isnt convincing, or even compelling.

 

[heretic888]

Claims like these are always interesting, but they are really missing the point.

None of this is "evidence".

Provocative?? Sure. Interesting?? Yup. Indicative?? Maybe.

But proof?? Evidence?? No way, no how.

Yes, a pure "random chance" explanation of the universe is at present extremely lacking. That does not automatically "prove" there is a Higher Power or Big Boom Bah behind it all, only that we don't know.

In a legal courtroom, all of this would count as "circumstantial evidence". As someone else put it, that's very, very indirect evidence. Its not enough to indict someone for charges of murder, and it certainly isn't enough to "prove" there's a God to a non-believer.

My guess is that "attempts" like these always boil down to one thing --- fear. There is an actual fear of doing what it would take to "prove" anything like that --- which is personal development and evolution of consciousness. All of the various wisdom traditions are unanimous on this: "proof" for the Divine cannot be seen in matter, and cannot be acquired through logic; it is only attained from years of contemplative practice (i.e., meditation, dummies).

Yup, its fear. What it really takes is making some changes to the mapmaker --- and not just switching around maps. The easy way out, if you ask me.

Laterz.

 

[Nightingale]

It really is impossible for all those things to happen by chance. So many things that we need to survive just happining by chance over and over, no way. I will be pondering this all day now. :erg:

actually, it's not impossible. merely highly improbable.

 

[rmcrobertson]

The problem is, folks, that there're inadequate definitions of terms like, "impossible," "improbable," and, "chance," here, which--as Gould pointed out repeatedly--is a common error among proponents of, "intelligent design," theory. Evolution isn't random.

It isn't chance that leads to, say, the development of eyes or wings. For eyes to work, there have to be certain commonalities--for example, some kind of light-gathering structure. For wings to work, there has to be (for example) some way of shaping a structure that catches the air. It's just physics, guys, not chance and not Divine Intervention.

But in many ways, evolution also isn't intelligent or purposeful. When you hear people claim that Nature made something happen, they're anthropomorphizing like crazy. Chance events also influence development--no big-*** meteor, and we'd probably still have dinosaurs running things.

Things aren't, "random," in the sense you're claiming. They also aren't, "deliberate," as far as science tells us.

Then anyway, the idea of God-as-Gepetto is pretty cheesy. You do not know that the Great Punta is constantly tinkering, constantly fiddling---and, I'd say, it's only human arrogance that makes us assume that He's got nothing better to do that hang around here.

You find the big guy by faith and introspection, and in other idealist ways that have little to do with science. However, science can show that some beliefs--like the idea that the world's flat, or that Creation took six days, or that the earth was made in 4004 BC--are just plain wrong.

 

[heretic888]

Mwaha..... it depends on your definition of "science".

 

[Brother John]

You find the big guy by faith and introspection, and in other idealist ways that have little to do with science. However, science can show that some beliefs--like the idea that the world's flat, or that Creation took six days, or that the earth was made in 4004 BC--are just plain wrong.

I agree that science isn't THE means of finding God. But I feel that too often science is taken as PROOF of something...and it isn't, it's a systematic means of observation and little more.

Also: World flat, yes science helps debunk....and quick.
The creation in 6 days. I don't think so. If you believe in a supernatural God who isn't contained/constrained within the framework of natural law (thus the Super in suprenatural) then miracles aren't just possible, but probable. I don't think that science does away with the belief in the actual 6 day creation. Personally, I'm a Christian...but I've not made up my own mind on the time it took to create everything. I don't know how the salvation of my soul hinges on this point...so maybe I'll just ask God how he did it later.

Your Brother
John

 

[Flatlander]

Something that I think needs to be clarified here is that the evolutionary theory is comprised of two parts:

1) A change or mutation occurs in an organism.

2) That change causes a variation in survivability of the species.

The theory cannot adequately address the cause of the change, rather, it can only validate the apparent survivability that results. Thus, the ones that change have a higher probability of survival under the given conditions.

The root of the argument posed in the article is attempting to address the initial cause for the changes. Design or chance? For me, the mathmatics of the problem suggest that probabilities within infinite possibilities indicate we must eventually come to be. No amount of ooohhh-ing and aaaahhh-ing at the beautiful symmetries that underlie physical laws enhances the position of design.

Furthermore, the currently favoured universal model states that the universe "bangs, expands, slows down, stops, retracts, collapses, and bangs again" in a cyclical pattern. When matter becomes so compressed as it would need to be at the point of reconsolidation/bang, it needs to be looked at from a quantum perspective. Assuming that the cyclical expansion and contraction is going on "forever", and the lack of absolute truth in quantum theory (tendencies to exist, probability of location/velocity), it's reasonable that over the periods of infinite cycles, we would see infinite variations of universal structure. (If we could see them)

Therefore, this time around, we are here, now. Next time, we may not be. The argument hasn't addressed these issues, and I feel they are relevant to the topic of "Creator/Chance".

 

[Rich Parsons]

Flatlander, no disresect meant.

The theory cannot adequately address the cause of the change, ...

I agree with the above.

rather, it can only validate the apparent survivability that results. Thus, the ones that change have a higher probability of survival under the given conditions.

I do not agree with the above. You may have a mutation that is likely to survive and they do not survive. Not all mutation is for the positive and better survivial of the species. Some mutations have and will die off depending upon their environment and conditions of survival.

Just my limited understanding :asian:

 

[Flatlander]

double tap

 

[Flatlander]

Rich, I agree too. Maybe I said it bad. Sometimes, I get too excited.

You are correct, not every mutation is automatically guaranteed enhanced survivability. Hence, survival of the fittest.

My apology for being ambiguous or misleading. And thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Scout_379]

The universe was "created" by innumerable causes, conditions, and coincidences. Life appears on planets merely as a result of these causes and conditions. Life on Earth appeared because of very convenient coincidences. Buddist POV

One thing that science truly has proved, is that the universe is freakin huge! What this essay does for me is convince me that there must be another place in this truly massive area that has also had these convenient coincidences. because of the scale of the universe, it is not surprising that our one little planet developed life.

 

[heretic888]

The universe was "created" by innumerable causes, conditions, and coincidences. Life appears on planets merely as a result of these causes and conditions. Life on Earth appeared because of very convenient coincidences. Buddist POV

That doesn't sound particularly "Buddhist" to me...

 

[Scout_379]

huh? wat do u mean?

What would be your opinion of the buddist POV? just askin...

 

[Flatlander]

The universe was "created" by innumerable causes, conditions, and coincidences.

Actually, I would say "very specific", rather than "innumerable".

 

[heretic888]

huh? wat do u mean?

What would be your opinion of the buddist POV? just askin...

Well, at the risking of taking the thread somewhat off-topic...

My answer would be: it depends on which context you are talking about.

Most schools of Buddhism would view the entire manifest universe and all subsequent "change" and "evolution" (actually pretty much anything having to do with time at all) as illusions. The "really real" is shunyata, mu, ku, emptiness, void, nothingness, the formless --- of course, ultimately, Form and Emptiness are regarded as "not-two", or nondual: the ultimate paradox.

On the other side of the equation, however, there are Buddhist prayers devoted to "this precious human body" --- for the explicit reason that, in Buddhism, only human beings are capable of achieving Liberation. Not rocks, not animals, not even the gods (devas). Only humans in our mortal frailty. Thus, there is an implicit notion of underlying "purpose" or "meaning", even within the illusory world of samsara, toward nirvana --- that the development of these "precious human bodies" within time and space is a step toward realizing Buddhahood.

Of course, I could just be horridly skewing all of this, and it really does depend on which sect we are referring to. :asian: