Why are we so obsessed with creation / beginnings?
Because it is one of the first questions we ask when we look at the cosmos. Why is there something rather than nothing? The thread is about the possibility of the answer being God. Have you ever asked this question?
No. My first reaction has always been "How beautiful this all is". Then "Why is it the way it is?". Then all kind of uncertainties surface that you either can project on "god" or try to explain.
And is time a parameter of the universe that we directly perceive, or is it an interpretation that we derive from more generic properties or dimensions of the universe?
Most scientists refer to a four dimensional universe, Time, hight, width, depth. There are other dimensions but they didn’t unfold as the cosmos unfolded. Do you have a different view?
I don't have a personal view because I don't have a clue. But I'm quite intrigued by biocentricity. Some think that this is a view that could lead to support of creationism, but the problem with creationism is that everything seems to support it provided you sufficiently limit the scope of the issue. Although biocentrism is quite far fetched, it seems to be able to explain some of the issues that are introduced by quantum theory. Our insight in our surroundings move from a simplistic mechanistic Newtonian view, through thermo dynamic and relativity bound einsteinian view, through quantum theory, through ...., There is no end to this, given our limited human insight and adventure driven motives. I'm currently reading this book which also is quite a good exercise in trying to think outside the box. His theory, like a lot of the others we know, is probably false. It is not only the destination or goal that is interesting, but foremost the journey is. An adventurous journey starts when now one is even aware of the destination and openly admits that.
I cannot find any evidence that physical matter has any discontinuities in the world that I perceive. What we perceive as creations are merely rearrangements of existing matter. A keyboard function can be created, or more accurate, an instance of a keyboard function can be created by harvesting and configuring existing matter in such a way that pressing a button activates flow of existing electrons. And that typing, that activates existing electrons in such a way that we are able to create communication through the physical and functional medium with one-another?
How about a big one, the edge of the expanding cosmos? Indeed matter is changing and rearranging itself but it has a discontinuity. Change implies a cause.
Assumptions, assumptions.... Yes, it is our current understanding. But the fact is we just don't know what is beyond the Hubble limit. Emptiness? Maybe. But if true, how would that support the existence of god? Not so long ago we did think that the space between stars was empty, now we think there is dark matter. And dark energy. Just because the calculations according to our current scientific models do not add up correctly we conclude the existence of this dark stuff. But we have no clue to what it represents. To me, this is just a sign of improvement of limited insight. Or the notion that current insight is limited. This notion, and the open mindedness to realize that, distinguishes science from religion.
It seems that assuming that a keyboard, or any physical object, can be created is at least a somewhat infantile interpretation of what actually takes place. Only abstract functions seem to be able to be created. Or probably more accurately: be activated.
A keyboard creation implies more than activation. It requires an intelligent designer. We know what that is. A bigger question is who designed the designer?
Do you have any faith in the expectation that this recursion will ever end? Is god the end?
Could it be possible that we completely misunderstand the concept of creation? And based on this misunderstood concept incorrectly think that the (matter of) physical universe must have been created and hence that the universe must have a cause? And subsequently dream op god, the mighty creator, as an explanation for this cause that in fact is completely irrelevant?
Because you are asking the wrong questions and making incorrect observations I think your conclusions are in error.
Bummer. Why?
Along this line of thought, wouldn't it be more likely, that if a god, which is an abstract, non-physical function existed, that it would have been caused by the physical universe in stead of the other way round? And if that were true, what would the function, the justification of the existence of this god be?
The universe can’t explain itself. It is called a “necessary cause.” Anything caused needs a cause. The universe and every thing in it was caused.. The cosmos is caused.
Yes, that is the basic question indeed. And I'm not going to reply with "I think your conclusions are in error." The question I raised was not concerning the fact if there is a general cause - effect relation. We indeed know that that probably is true. I was asking the question if beginnings / endings are a specific case of the general cause - effect paradigm or just a human misconception.
The people who say there are no ghosts, teapots, unicorns or God remind me of those who said there were no dinosaurs not that long ago. No evidence then so they are not real. They are perhaps real even if I lack evidence of them..
No evidence for them makes them improbable. Why do you/don't you believe in gnomes?
Why is there something rather than nothing? A question we all get to ask. The greatest thing I can think about is God. In someway, everything I can think of is real. I clam the extraordinary cosmos exists which does not explain itself. My extraordinary explanation for its existence, is God. Humans everywhere can and do think this though they put different faces to Him. What is your view. Do you have extraordionary evidence?
Maybe the universe is "God", no need to project personalities into it.
Yes but a "feeling" as such is not an argument for or against, you'd have to be more specific. Please refer to external observable evidence instead of your internal mental states (like feelings).
I am not making feelings the same as other kinds of evidence. Feelings are just one kind of evidence. They are internal but so are most/all of our other senses used to detect external evidence. Evidence must be made internal to be known. This is a major problem in the Philosophy of Science. Don’t tell me that everything you claim to know is not internal. If I did not feel God, wouldn’t you be claiming that was evidence nothing was there. So who is rational and who takes all the evidence into consideration?
There are people who feel that there are no gods. Why would your feelings be more valid than theirs?
SHADOWHAWK: The people who say there are no ghosts, teapots, unicorns or God remind me of those who said there were no dinosaurs not that long ago. No evidence then so they are not real. They are perhaps real even if I lack evidence of them.. ----------------------------- platypus No evidence for them makes them improbable. Why do you/don't you believe in gnomes?
Would you say that about radio waves or other things we had no evidence of a hundred years ago? No evidence science will give us eternal life, yet look at the belief of so many in LONGECITY of hope in science and long/eternal life.. Anyone who questions it is called a “deathist.” If evidence in gnomes becomes evident would you believe? Perhaps not but I may, depending on the evidence. That is why I always ask what kind of evidence a person accepts. What is a more important question to me is, “what happens to a person after they die” because my guess is everyone in LONGECITY at the present, will be dead in 100 years from now. What does Science say?
SHADOWHAWK: Why is there something rather than nothing? A question we all get to ask. The greatest thing I can think about is God. In someway, everything I can think of is real. I clam the extraordinary cosmos exists which does not explain itself. My extraordinary explanation for its existence, is God. Humans everywhere can and do think this though they put different faces to Him. What is your view. Do you have extraordionary evidence? ----------------------------- platypus Maybe the universe is "God", no need to project personalities into it.
---------------------------------- A pantheist? Maybe. My own preference and faith is a Christian answer to what kind of theism..
If evidence in gnomes becomes evident would you believe?
The question is, why wouldn't you believe if there's evidence?
Perhaps not but I may, depending on the evidence. That is why I always ask what kind of evidence a person accepts.
Any direct evidence will do. Circumstantial evidence can too easily be misinterpreted.
What is a more important question to me is, “what happens to a person after they die” because my guess is everyone in LONGECITY at the present, will be dead in 100 years from now. What does Science say?
I think science says people are blissfully nonexistent & nonsentient. If I've understood right Chrtistianity says that God makes sure that most people will suffer horribly forever, while some tiny subset of people will really like the afterlife.
----------------------------- platypus Maybe the universe is "God", no need to project personalities into it. ---------------------------------- A pantheist? Maybe. My own preference and faith is a Christian answer to what kind of theism..
Why do you choose a religion with such an evil outcome with torture, hell and all that crap? Wouldn't even panteism be better?
1. The points related to infinity are indeed philosophical. An example of this are an infinite multi verse. ----------------------------- playpus:
Nothing stops universe being infinite, really. You can try proving the opposite of course - good luck with that.
Time
is an aspect of the universe.[/quote It is sequential where one moment follows another.That's debatable, remember that even the order of events can depend on how you are moving (Einstein(
Every aspect of the cosmos is affected by it. If you are saying the multiverse is not affected by it where is the science. Reason dictates if there is an infinite past like this one, you could never get to the present. Now your turn... Why isn’t your statement “Nothing stops the universe being infinite,” philosophical? Is this an absolute? Science???
Given infinite time, even a slow mover will get to the present.
---------------------------------- There are many evidences for the existence of God.
But no direct evidence. Just words and insinuations. None of the historical philosophical proofs for God were valid so I doubt that you can concoct a valid one just like that. There's no direct evidence of gods while tells me that there probably are no gods around here.
You are not being part of the process. Did we agree you don’t have to answer anything but only play skeptic to everything as long as you can think up another question? Atheism explains nothing. You have explained nothing. Atheism believes there is no god. Seriously you also have the same burden of proof as I do and you are part of exploring reasons. You don’t accept my reasons, where are yours?
Well, when I look at the world and listen to people babble about gods it's increasingly clear to me that they do not know what they are talking about. It's all in the brain and projected onto the outside world.
brainbox said: Why are we so obsessed with creation / beginnings? Shadowhawk: Because it is one of the first questions we ask when we look at the cosmos. Why is there something rather than nothing? The thread is about the possibility of the answer being God. Have you ever asked this question? Brainbox: No. My first reaction has always been "How beautiful this all is". Then "Why is it the way it is?". Then all kind of uncertainties surface that you either can project on "god" or try to explain.
“No...” What? I think it is beautiful as well. I don’t think believing in God keeps one from trying to explain it in the slightest. Again Christians are no strangers to science.
brainbox said: And is time a parameter of the universe that we directly perceive, or is it an interpretation that we derive from more generic properties or dimensions of the universe? I don't have a personal view because I don't have a clue. But I'm quite intrigued by biocentricity. Some think that this is a view that could lead to support of creationism, but the problem with creationism is that everything seems to support it provided you sufficiently limit the scope of the issue. Although biocentrism is quite far fetched, it seems to be able to explain some of the issues that are introduced by quantum theory. Our insight in our surroundings move from a simplistic mechanistic Newtonian view, through thermo dynamic and relativity bound einsteinian view, through quantum theory, through ...., There is no end to this, given our limited human insight and adventure driven motives. I'm currently reading this book which also is quite a good exercise in trying to think outside the box. His theory, like a lot of the others we know, is probably false. It is not only the destination or goal that is interesting, but foremost the journey is. An adventurous journey starts when now one is even aware of the destination and openly admits that.
OK
brainbox said: I cannot find any evidence that physical matter has any discontinuities in the world that I perceive. What we perceive as creations are merely rearrangements of existing matter. A keyboard function can be created, or more accurate, an instance of a keyboard function can be created by harvesting and configuring existing matter in such a way that pressing a button activates flow of existing electrons. And that typing, that activates existing electrons in such a way that we are able to create communication through the physical and functional medium with one-another? Shadowhawk: How about a big one, the edge of the expanding cosmos? Indeed matter is changing and rearranging itself but it has a discontinuity. Change implies a cause. Brainbox Assumptions, assumptions.... Yes, it is our current understanding. But the fact is we just don't know what is beyond the Hubble limit. Emptiness? Maybe. But if true, how would that support the existence of god? Not so long ago we did think that the space between stars was empty, now we think there is dark matter. And dark energy. Just because the calculations according to our current scientific models do not add up correctly we conclude the existence of this dark stuff. But we have no clue to what it represents. To me, this is just a sign of improvement of limited insight. Or the notion that current insight is limited. This notion, and the open mindedness to realize that, distinguishes science from religion.
You are setting up straw men and creating false dichotomies. I don’t disagree with you until you reach your conclusions. Tell how this distinguishes religion from Science? Science and religion are different because science is a process not a position. Science to its credit is almost always wrong.
brainbox said: It seems that assuming that a keyboard, or any physical object, can be created is at least a somewhat infantile interpretation of what actually takes place. Only abstract functions seem to be able to be created. Or probably more accurately: be activated. Shadowhawk: A keyboard creation implies more than activation. It requires an intelligent designer. We know what that is. A bigger question is who designed the designer? Do you have any faith in the expectation that this recursion will ever end? Is god the end? brainbox said: Could it be possible that we completely misunderstand the concept of creation? And based on this misunderstood concept incorrectly think that the (matter of) physical universe must have been created and hence that the universe must have a cause? And subsequently dream op god, the mighty creator, as an explanation for this cause that in fact is completely irrelevant? Shadowhawk; Because you are asking the wrong questions and making incorrect observations I think your conclusions are in error. Brainbbox Bummer. Why?
1. The keyboard was created by intelligent design in your illustration. None of it was simply “activated.” You have explained nothing. How could this be irrelevant when intelligence implies a designer? 2. This is way to long! Let’s focus.
brainbox said: Along this line of thought, wouldn't it be more likely, that if a god, which is an abstract, non-physical function existed, that it would have been caused by the physical universe in stead of the other way round? And if that were true, what would the function, the justification of the existence of this god be? Shadowhawk: The universe can’t explain itself. It is called a “necessary cause.” Anything caused needs a cause. The universe and every thing in it was caused.. The cosmos is caused. Brainbox: Yes, that is the basic question indeed. And I'm not going to reply with "I think your conclusions are in error." The question I raised was not concerning the fact if there is a general cause - effect relation. We indeed know that that probably is true. I was asking the question if beginnings / endings are a specific case of the general cause - effect paradigm or just a human misconception.
see # 17,18,19 where this is dealt with in detail.
1. The points related to infinity are indeed philosophical. An example of this are an infinite multi verse. ----------------------------- playpus:
Nothing stops universe being infinite, really. You can try proving the opposite of course - good luck with that.
Time
is an aspect of the universe.[/quote It is sequential where one moment follows another.
That's debatable, remember that even the order of events can depend on how you are moving (Einstein(
Every aspect of the cosmos is affected by it. If you are saying the multiverse is not affected by it where is the science. Reason dictates if there is an infinite past like this one, you could never get to the present. Now your turn... Why isn’t your statement “Nothing stops the universe being infinite,” philosophical? Is this an absolute? Science???
Given infinite time, even a slow mover will get to the present.
---------------------------------- There are many evidences for the existence of God.
But no direct evidence. Just words and insinuations. None of the historical philosophical proofs for God were valid so I doubt that you can concoct a valid one just like that. There's no direct evidence of gods while tells me that there probably are no gods around here.
You are not being part of the process. Did we agree you don’t have to answer anything but only play skeptic to everything as long as you can think up another question? Atheism explains nothing. You have explained nothing. Atheism believes there is no god. Seriously you also have the same burden of proof as I do and you are part of exploring reasons. You don’t accept my reasons, where are yours?
Well, when I look at the world and listen to people babble about gods it's increasingly clear to me that they do not know what they are talking about. It's all in the brain and projected onto the outside world.
You are repeating your previous arguments. Here are two sources I posted elsewhere that deal with these issues from both sides in detail. God is possible and there is evidence for it. I will have more time tomorrow to discuss it.
You are repeating your previous arguments. Here are two sources I posted elsewhere that deal with these issues from both sides in detail. God is possible and there is evidence for it. I will have more time tomorrow to discuss it.
A god is possible just not probable. What is even less probable is that any specific religion got it 'right'. Honestly, there is as much of a probability that the scientology view of the cosmos is correct as there is for any other belief. So even if you believe in a god, I get lost on how anyone can presume to think that thier belief is correct.
As far as proof goes, there is nothing shown anywhere that is proof enough for me. If there is a god, make yourself known to me and you will have my belief. However, for all my years as a faithful christian, you didnt bother with me a single time. I can only conclude you arent there.
But you haven't produced any evidence. Philosophical arguments have failed for millennia and adding pseudo-physics to the mix won't help. I've explained that there are viable physical theories that posit that there was something before the Big Bang, so none of the arguments based on Big Bang being the "moment of creation" don't hold.
So, can you produce evidence for gods that is based on something directly observable (Big Bang or the time before it are not directly observable)? Is there anything in nature or society that is evidence for the existence of gods?
You are setting up straw men and creating false dichotomies.
Nah. I'm not. You did refer to the Hubble limit as a discontinuity more or less as support of "the matter of the universe is created" paradigm. You just cannot put forward this assertion without making assumptions. We did not measure what is beyond that limit, we can only hypothesise. I merely gave an example where we have been wrong in the past regarding a similar issue.
I don’t disagree with you until you reach your conclusions. Tell how this distinguishes religion from Science? Science and religion are different because science is a process not a position. Science to its credit is almost always wrong.
I think we could come to an agreement. If I understand you correctly, we are implying exactly the same thing. Humans are almost always wrong indeed, then they realise they are and take further steps in the process to try to find new hypotheses to verify. Even the process itself is adapted when required. Every now and then there is a correct hypothesis that can be added as refinement of existing proven knowledge. It's kind of a 3 steps forward 2 steps back process, but it sometimes works and is a lot of fun to participate in or to read about.
But you haven't produced any evidence. Philosophical arguments have failed for millennia and adding pseudo-physics to the mix won't help. I've explained that there are viable physical theories that posit that there was something before the Big Bang, so none of the arguments based on Big Bang being the "moment of creation" don't hold.
So, can you produce evidence for gods that is based on something directly observable (Big Bang or the time before it are not directly observable)? Is there anything in nature or society that is evidence for the existence of gods?
This again is why I ask, what kind of evidence do you accept.. Here is a well thought out debate between William Lane Craig and three atheists in the recent debates in England. It is well worth the time. “Is belief in God a Delusion?” It took place when Dawkins, didn’t show up and is tremendous. It covers the basic arguments in Dawkins, book “The God Delusion.” Here is a link to it.
I am an amateur archaeologist and have a large collection of Indian artifacts. I never knew or saw the Indians who made the artifacts. I didn’t see their villages either. I learned, what I know, through books and looking for evidence of intelligent design. When I pick up a rock, I look for evidence of intelligent design. When I look in a mirror I do the same thing. I believe there is tremendous evidence for an intelligent designer.
The Sun came up this morning here in California where I live. I know it did through my senses of sight. I am not a skeptic of that, even if some are. I ‘believe’ the sun will come up tomorrow, though I have no direct evidence of it. It is faith based on past history as well as experience. Faith has its reasons.
I am a historian. Most of what I believe about history is not directly observable. If that is the only kind of evidence you accept, I don’t know how you can function in the world. Surely you are putting me on.
You are setting up straw men and creating false dichotomies.
Nah. I'm not. You did refer to the Hubble limit as a discontinuity more or less as support of "the matter of the universe is created" paradigm. You just cannot put forward this assertion without making assumptions. We did not measure what is beyond that limit, we can only hypothesise. I merely gave an example where we have been wrong in the past regarding a similar issue.
I don’t disagree with you until you reach your conclusions. Tell how this distinguishes religion from Science? Science and religion are different because science is a process not a position. Science to its credit is almost always wrong.
I think we could come to an agreement. If I understand you correctly, we are implying exactly the same thing. Humans are almost always wrong indeed, then they realise they are and take further steps in the process to try to find new hypotheses to verify. Even the process itself is adapted when required. Every now and then there is a correct hypothesis that can be added as refinement of existing proven knowledge. It's kind of a 3 steps forward 2 steps back process, but it sometimes works and is a lot of fun to participate in or to read about.
You are repeating your previous arguments. Here are two sources I posted elsewhere that deal with these issues from both sides in detail. God is possible and there is evidence for it. I will have more time tomorrow to discuss it.
A god is possible just not probable. What is even less probable is that any specific religion got it 'right'. Honestly, there is as much of a probability that the scientology view of the cosmos is correct as there is for any other belief. So even if you believe in a god, I get lost on how anyone can presume to think that thier belief is correct.
As far as proof goes, there is nothing shown anywhere that is proof enough for me. If there is a god, make yourself known to me and you will have my belief. However, for all my years as a faithful christian, you didnt bother with me a single time. I can only conclude you arent there.
I agree with part of your first statement. Your third statement is like saying there may be a correct answer but no one has it. How do you know? You must have something you are drawing your conclusion from. “If there is a God, make yourself known to me,’ is difficult when “there is nothing shown anywhere that is proof enough for me,” comes in the same sentence. You won’t accept anything. These words I myself have said.
If there is a god, make yourself known to me and you will have my belief. However, for all my years as a faithful christian, you didnt bother with me a single time. I can only conclude you arent there.
If you want God to pop in for a visit you're probably going to have to do a bit more than just attending church or going to bible study. You've got to let Him know you mean business.
But you haven't produced any evidence. Philosophical arguments have failed for millennia and adding pseudo-physics to the mix won't help. I've explained that there are viable physical theories that posit that there was something before the Big Bang, so none of the arguments based on Big Bang being the "moment of creation" don't hold.
So, can you produce evidence for gods that is based on something directly observable (Big Bang or the time before it are not directly observable)? Is there anything in nature or society that is evidence for the existence of gods?
This again is why I ask, what kind of evidence do you accept..
...
I am an amateur archaeologist and have a large collection of Indian artifacts. I never knew or saw the Indians who made the artifacts. I didn’t see their villages either. I learned, what I know, through books and looking for evidence of intelligent design. When I pick up a rock, I look for evidence of intelligent design. When I look in a mirror I do the same thing. I believe there is tremendous evidence for an intelligent designer.
Where do you see the hand of an intelligent designer? The tuning of the parameters of this universe for the existence of life doesn't really work since the antropic principle guarantees that only those parts of the multiverse that can support life can be observed by sentient beings. Living creatures are clearly produced by evolution, which does not produce intelligent designs but rather improvised ones like a "blind watchmaker".
The Sun came up this morning here in California where I live. I know it did through my senses of sight. I am not a skeptic of that, even if some are. I ‘believe’ the sun will come up tomorrow, though I have no direct evidence of it. It is faith based on past history as well as experience. Faith has its reasons.
Do you say "faith has reasons" because you naturally feel that way or because you have been taught that "faith" is a good thing? Besides, arguing that one needs to have faith in gods since nothing is really 100% cerain is not very elegant and only goes to show that in the end you have little or no proof for the existence of gods.
I am a historian. Most of what I believe about history is not directly observable. If that is the only kind of evidence you accept, I don’t know how you can function in the world. Surely you are putting me on.
Let's look at the other angle - do you think that gods interfere in the daily lives of people and if yes, do you have any evidence for it? To me the world looks exactly like a place where gods never show up and talk to people, so they might as well not exist.
Platipus:
“Where do you see the hand of an intelligent designer? The tuning of the parameters of this universe for the existence of life doesn't really work since the antropic principle guarantees that only those parts of the multiverse that can support life can be observed by sentient beings. Living creatures are clearly produced by evolution, which does not produce intelligent designs but rather improvised ones like a "blind watchmaker".”
Shadowhawk:
To many issues here. I don’t want to write a book. For example issues related to mind and intelligence but I will limikt myself to fine tuning of the universe. Was it law, chance or design?
The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to law, chance or design.
It is not due to law or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.
The progress of science has revealed that the Big Bang was fine-tuned to allow for the existence of intelligent life.I shall show evidence for fine tuning for life shortly.
Type 1: Constants like the gravitational constant are finely-tuned, and are not dependent on the laws of physics.
Type 2: Quantities like the amount of entropy in the universe, are not dependent on the laws of physics.
The range of life-permitting values is incredibly small compared to the possible values of the constants and quantities. (Like having a lottery with a million black balls and one white ball, and you pick the white ball. Even though each individual ball has the same tiny chance of being picked, but the odds are overwhelming that the whichever ball you pick will be black, and not white).
Not only are the numbers not due to laws, but they are not due to chance either. It’s not just that the settings are unlikely, it’s that they are unlikely and they conform to an independent pattern – namely, the ability to support complex life.
Evidence for fine-tuning by astronomer Hugh Ross below:
For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.
Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
1 Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248. Additional references are listed below:
John Leslie, editor, Physical Cosmology and Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 121-180.
Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?" Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.
Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, "Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.
Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, "Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing," Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.
P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, "A Supernova Brane Scan," Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.
P. deBernardis, et al, "Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.
A. T. Lee, et al, "A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.
R. Stompor, et al, "Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.
Andrew Watson, "Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up," Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.
Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, "Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Ly Forest?" Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.
Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, "A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies," Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.
G. Efstathiou, et al, "Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.
Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, "Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, " Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.
Renyue Cen, "Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.
Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking-Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," a contribution to Stephen Hawkingís 60th birthday workshop on the Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, January, 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0205010v1, May 2, 2002.
Joseph F. Hennawi and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "Observational Constraints on the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Scenario and the Growth of Supermassive Black Holes," Astrophysical Journal, 572 (2002), pp. 41-54.
Robert Brandenberger, Brandon Carter, and Anne-Christine Davis, "Microwave Background Constraints on Decaying Defects," Physics Letters B, 534 (2002), pp. 1-7.
Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998), pp. 461-466.
Q. R. Ahmad, et al, "Measurement of the Rate of e + d p + p + e- Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory," Physical Review Letters, 87 (2001), id. 071301.
R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 334B (1991), pp. 391-403.
George F. R. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 30.
H. R. Marston, S. H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, "Iron Metabolism in Copper-Deficient Rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 25 (1971), pp. 15-30.
K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, "Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Microsomes," British Journal of Nutrition, 34 (1975), pp. 105-112;.
Walter Mertz, "The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 33 (1974), pp. 307-313.
Bruno Leibundgut, "Cosmological Implications from Observations of Type Ia Supernovae," Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39 (2001), pp. 67-98.
C. L. Bennett, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations, Preliminary Maps, and Basic Results," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 1-27.
G. Hinshaw, et al, ""First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Angular Power Spectrum," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 135-159.
A. Balbi, et al, "Probing Dark Energy with the Cosmic Microwave Background: Projected Constraints from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 588 (2003), pp. L5-L8.
A. Vikhlinin, et al, "Cosmological Constraints from the Evolution of the Cluster Baryon Mass Function at z = 0.5," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 15-25.
Frank Thim, et al, "The Cepheid Distance to NGC 5236 (M83) with the ESO Very Large Telescope," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 256-270.
Kazuhide Ichikawa and M. Kawasaki, "Constraining the Variation of the Coupling Constants with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis," Physical Review D, 65 (2002), id 123511.
Eubino-Martin José Alberto, et al, "First Results from the Very Small Array-IV. Cosmological Parameter Estimation," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341 (2003), pp. 1084-1092.
Takuji Tsujimoto and Toshikazu Shigeyama, "Star Formation History of Centauri Imprinted in Elemental Abundance Patterns," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 803-808.
Santi Cassissi, Maurizio Salaris, and Alan W. Irwin, "The Initial Helium Content of Galactic Globular Cluster Stars from the R-Parameter: Comparison with the Cosmic Microwave Background Constraint," Astrophysical Journal, 588 (2003), pp. 862-870.
Naoki Yoshida, et al, "Early Structure Formation and Reionization in a Warm Dark Matter Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L1-L4.
Robert R. Caldwell, et al, "Early Quintessence in Light of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L75-L78.
V. Luridiana, et al, "The Effect of Collisional Enhancement of Balmer Lines on the Determination of the Primordial Helium Abundance," Astrophysical Journal, 592 (20030, pp. 846-865.
Y. Jack Ng, W. A. Christiansen, and H. van Dam, "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L87-L89.
J. L. Sievers, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Background Imager Observations and Comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA," Astrophysical Journal, 591 (2003), pp. 599-622.
R. Scranton, et al, "Physical Evidence for Dark Energy," submitted July 20, 2003 to Physical Review Letters, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0307335.
Pablo Fosalba, Enrique Gaztanaga, and Francisco Castander, "Detection of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe and Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effects from the Cosmic Microwave Background-Galaxy Correlation." Astrophysical Journal Letters, 597 (2003), pp. L89-L92.
M. R. Nolta, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Anistropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Dark Energy Induced Correlation with Radio Sources," submitted May 7, 2003 to Astrophysical Journal, http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0305097.
Stephen Boughn and Robert Crittenden, "A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-Scale Structure in the Universe," Nature, 427 (2004), pp. 45-47.
T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, "A Strong Astrophysical Constraint on the Violation of Special Relativity by Quantum Gravity," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1019-1021.
Sean Carroll, "Quantum Gravity: An Astrophysical Constraint," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1007-1008.
D. J. Fixsen, "The Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy from the Combined COBE FIRAS and WMAP Observations," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 594 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
John L. Tonry, et al, "Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 594 (2003), pp. 1-24.
Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al, "Dodecahedral Space Topology as an Explanation for Weak-Angle Temperature Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 593-595.
George F. R. Ellis, "The Shape of the Universe," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 566-567.
Charles Seife, "Polyhedral Model Gives the Universe an Unexpected Twist," Science, 302 (2003), p. 209.
Neil J. Cornish, et al, "Constraining the Topology of the Universe," astro-ph/0310233, submitted to Physical Review Letters, 2003.
David Kirkman, et al, "The Cosmological Baryon Density from the Deuterium-to-Hydrogen Ratio in QSO Absorption Systems: D/H Toward Q1243+3047," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 149 (2003), pp. 1-28.
Jeremiah P. Ostriker, et al, "The Probability Distribution Function of Light in the Universe: Results from Hydrodynamic Simulations," Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2003), pp. 1-8.
M. Tegmark, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from SDSS and WMAP," preprint, 2003 posted at http://xxx.lanl.gov/...tro-ph/0310723.
Wolfram Freudling, Michael R. Corbin, and Kirk T. Korista, "Iron Emission in z ~ 6 QSOs," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 587 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "The inconstant constant?" Nature 428 (2004), pp. 132-133.
H. Chand, et al., "Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample," Astronomy and Astrophysics, 417 (2004), pp. 853-871.
Thibault Damous and Freeman Dyson, "The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant revisited," Nuclear Physics B, 480 (1996), pp. 37-54.
Anton M. Koekemoer, et al, "A Possible New Population of Sources with Extreme X-Ray/Optical Ratios," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 600 (2004), pp. L123-L126.
Henry C. Ferguson, et al, "The Size Evolution of High-Redshift Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2004), pp. L107-L110.
Charles Seife, "Light from Most-Distant Supernovae Shows Dark Energy Stays the Course," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1271.
Jonathan C. Tan and Christopher F. McKee, "The Formation of the First Stars. I. Mass Infall Rates, Accretion Disk Structure, and Protostellar Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 603 (2004), pp. 383-400.
Charles Seife, "Galactic Stripling Gives a Glimpse of the Universe's Raw Youth," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1597.
Alan Heavens, et al, "The Star Formation History of the Universe from the Stellar Populations of Nearby Galaxies," Nature, 428 (2004), pp. 625-627.
Pavel D. Naselsky, et al, "Primordial Magnetic Field and Non-Gaussianity of the One-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 45-54.
Gang Chen, et al, "Looking for Cosmological Alfvén Waves in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 655-659.
Tommaso Treu and Léon V. E. Koopmans, "Massive Dark Matter Halos and Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies to z = 1," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 739-760.
B. Aubert, et al (the BaBar Collaboration), "Observations of Direct CP Violation in B0® K+pi- Decays," preprint, August, 2004, high energy physics - experiment.
Mark Peplow, "The Bs Have It," Nature, 430 (2004), p. 739.
Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
A. C. S. Readhead, et al, "Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager," Science, 306 (2004), pp. 836-844.
Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
Amr A. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
J. R. Lin, S. N. Zhang, and T. P. Li, "Gamma-Ray Bursts Are Produced Predominantly in the Early Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 819-822.
Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
Naoki Yoshida, Volker Bromm, and Lars Hernquist,, "The Era of Massive Population III Stars: Cosmological Implications and Self-Termination," The Astrophysical Journal, 605, (2004), pp. 579-590.
YesheFenner, Jason X. Prochaska and Brad K. Gibson, "Constraints on Early Nucleosynthesis from the Abundance Pattern of a Damped Lyα System at z = 2.626," The Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 116-125.
Andreas Heithausen,, "Molecular Hydrogen as Baryonic Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 606 (2004), pp. L13-L15.
Douglas Clowe, Anthony Gonzalez, and Maxim Markevitch, "Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster IE 0657-558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter," Astrophysical Journal, 604 (2004), pp. 596-603.
Sean T. Prigge, et al, "Dioxygen Binds End-On to Mononuclear Copper in a Precatalytic Enzyme Complex," Science, 304 (2004), pp. 864-867.
H. Jakubowski, Biochemistry: Chapter 8: Oxidative-Phosphorylation, A: The Chemistry of Dioxygen, November 17, 2005, http://employees.csb...xygenchem.html. Accessed 02/06/06.
Robert H. Abeles, Perry A. Frey, and William P. Jencks, Biochemistry (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1992), pp. 655-673.
P. Caresia, S. Matarrese, and L. Moscardini, "Constraints on Extended Quintessence from High-Redshift Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 21-28.
AmrA. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
Kyu-Hyun Chae, et al, "Constraints on Scalar-Field Dark Energy from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey Gravitational Lens Statistics," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L71-74.
Max Tegmark, et al, "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 702-740.
Adrian C. Pope, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 655-660.
YunWang and Pia Mukherjee, "Model-Independent Constraints on Dark Energy Density from Flux-Averaging Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Data," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 654-663.
Adam G. Riess, et al, "Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 665-687.
A. Kashlinsky, et al, "Detecting Population III Stars Through Observations of Near-Infrared Cosmic Infrared Background Anisotropies," Astrophysical Journal, 608 (2004), pp. 1-9.
Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
Paul Martin and Luis C. Ho, "A Population of Massive Globular Clusters in NGC 5128," Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 233-246.
L. Pasquini, et al, "Beryllium in Turnoff Stars of NGC6397: Early Galaxy Spallation Cosmochronology and Cluster Formation," Astronomy and Astrophysics, in press, 2004.
Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, "Time Delay of Photons of Different Energies in Multidimensional Cosmological Models," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 633-641.
I. H. Stairs, S. E. Thorsett, and Z. Arzoumanian, "Measurement of Gravitational Soin-Orbit Coupling in a Binary Pulsar System," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id. 141101.
Daniel B. Zucker, et al, "Andromeda IX. A New Dwarf Speroidal Satellite of M31," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 612 (2004), pp. L121-L124.
J. Patrick Henry, "X-Ray Temperatures for the Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey High-Redshift Cluster Sample: Constraints on Cosmology and the Dark Energy Equation of State," Astrophysical Journal, 609 (2004), pp. 603-616.
S. W. Allen, et al, "Constraints on Dark Energy from Chandra Observations of the Largest Relaxed Galaxy Clusters," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353 (2004), pp. 457-467.
Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "Direct Determination of the Kinematics of the Universe and Properties of the Dark Energy as Functions of Redshift," Astrophysical Journal, 612 (2004), pp. 652-659.
Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "A Model-Independent Determination of the Expansion and Acceleration Rates of the Universe as a Function of Redshift and Constraints on Dark Energy," Astrophysical Journal 597 (2003), pp. 9-20.
E. Peik, et al, "Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id # 170801.
I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavils, "A Confirmation of the General Relativistic Prediction of the Lense-Thirring Effect," Nature, 431 (2004), pp. 958-960.
Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
Signe Riemer-Sorensen, Steen H. Hansen, and Kristian Pedersen, "Sterile Neutrinos in the Milky Way: Observational Constraints," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 644 (2006), pp. L33-L36.
D. G. Yamazaki, et al, "Constraints on the Evolution of the Pimordial Magnetic Field from the Small-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Angular Anisotropy," Astrophysical Journal, 646 (2006), pp. 719-729.
Faith seeks understanding. The universe and life was caused by an intelligent designer.
Even life from an evolutionist view can be so amazing that it leads one to God.
Shadowhawk: The Sun came up this morning here in California where I live. I know it did through my senses of sight. I am not a skeptic of that, even if some are. I ‘believe’ the sun will come up tomorrow, though I have no direct evidence of it. It is faith based on past history as well as experience. Faith has its reasons. ----------------------- platypus: Do you say "faith has reasons" because you naturally feel that way or because you have been taught that "faith" is a good thing? Besides, arguing that one needs to have faith in gods since nothing is really 100% cerain is not very elegant and only goes to show that in the end you have little or no proof for the existence of gods.
I could ask you the same question. Again, what kind of proof do you accept? I “believe,” have faith in God, using the same reasoning facility you do when you believe there is no God. I didn’t argue one needs to have faith in “gods.”
shadowhawk: I am a historian. Most of what I believe about history is not directly observable. If that is the only kind of evidence you accept, I don’t know how you can function in the world. Surely you are putting me on.
----------------------------- platypus Let's look at the other angle - do you think that gods interfere in the daily lives of people and if yes, do you have any evidence for it? To me the world looks exactly like a place where gods never show up and talk to people, so they might as well not exist.
I have written before of my relationship of love with “God.” See.
There are over 1 billion Christians in the world alone who believe. There are so many Roman Catholics that this Church alone would be the largest country in the world. Again, what kind of evidence do you want of God who is a spiritual being. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However it is real. A relationship with God, is found through the faith of the believer. God is also real. You want to believe in God and know God? I suggest you start by putting your small faith in the possibility of there being a God. Perhaps the world will start looking different.
To many issues here. I don’t want to write a book. For example issues related to mind and intelligence but I will limikt myself to fine tuning of the universe. Was it law, chance or design?
The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to law, chance or design. It is not due to law or chance. Therefore, it is due to design.
What??? Is that supposed to be an argument? Have you not heard of the Anthropic Principle?:
..again your attempt to prove the existence of gods has been debunked - I sense a pattern emerging here.
Faith seeks understanding. The universe and life was caused by an intelligent designer.
But you have not produced any unambiguous evidence! But let's forget that for awhile - what would be the origin and causes of the intelligent designer then?
Even life from an evolutionist view can be so amazing that it leads one to God.
What is an evolutionist? Do you mean a biologist?
ps. have you grown up in a highly fundamentalist area where even evolution is widely disputed? =:-O
Shadowhawk: To many issues here. I don’t want to write a book. For example issues related to mind and intelligence but I will limit myself to fine tuning of the universe. Was it law, chance or design?
The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to law, chance or design. It is not due to law or chance. Therefore, it is due to design. ----------------------------- platypus: What??? Is that supposed to be an argument? Have you not heard of the Anthropic Principle:
.again your attempt to prove the existence of gods has been debunked - I sense a pattern emerging here.
Yes, I am talking about the Anthropic Principle. Can’t you recognize that??? Can’t you recognize a formal argument either? Where is your rebuttal? By the way, we were calling it the “fine-tuning,” of the universe, until right now. I have no problem with either term.
You have failed to identify what kind of evidence you would accept and you have debunked nothing I put forth. The burden of proof is on you to prove God is not possible which is the question of this thread.
Shadowhawk -Faith seeks understanding. The universe and life was caused by an intelligent designer. -----------------------------
platypus: But you have not produced any unambiguous evidence! But let's forget that for awhile - what would be the origin and causes of the intelligent designer then?
Shadowhawk: Even life from an evolutionist view can be so amazing that it leads one to God. ----------------------------- platypus: What is an evolutionist? Do you mean a biologist?
ps. have you grown up in a highly fundamentalist area where even evolution is widely disputed? =:-O
Since you have never identified what “evidence you accept,” what is, “unambiguous evidence?” God is an uncaused cause. Who made God, is a question my parents were asking me when I was eight years old. How about a tough one, how can a caused cosmos exist if the cause is caused?
Evolutionist and Biologist are not the same thing. Don’t you know that? Neither term identifies whether one is a theist or not.
I grew up in a fundamentalist atheist family. No one believed!!! Are you a fundamentalist atheist too? Maybe we have the same roots in backwoods California. Lots of fundamentalists here, and bigots too. Well...don’t want the level of conversation to slip to that level.
Since you have never identified what “evidence you accept,” what is, “unambiguous evidence?” God is an uncaused cause. Who made God, is a question my parents were asking me when I was eight years old. How about a tough one, how can a caused cosmos exist if the cause is caused?
Unambiguous evidence would be something that could only be explained by the existence of gods. You can cease with the philosophical "proofs" as they can all be rebutted - this current one simply by offering the simpler explanation that the multiverse is an uncaused cause in itself.
Evolutionist and Biologist are not the same thing
. Don’t you know that? Neither term identifies whether one is a theist or not.But I don't know what an "evolutionist" is. Someone who accepts the evidence-based 20th century scientific worldview?
I agree with part of your first statement. Your third statement is like saying there may be a correct answer but no one has it. How do you know? You must have something you are drawing your conclusion from.
“If there is a God, make yourself known to me,’ is difficult when “there is nothing shown anywhere that is proof enough for me,” comes in the same sentence. You won’t accept anything. These words I myself have said.
That’s just it, I don't know if there is or isn't a god any more than a Muslim or Christian knows if their version of belief is correct.
The reason why I don't believe in a god is because I have no evidence that any god exists let alone a particular religion's version. I would love to believe in a god and know it exists, especially the Christian version, but I cannot believe in something just 'because'. I need to have a reason to believe and I can't rationalize believing in some being that is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful.
Honestly, from my perspective if we take any of these arguments or discussions in this thread and replaced the word 'god' with the word 'flying spaghetti monster', it would mean the exact same thing to me. How can I believe in a flying spaghetti monster without proof?
If I repeated some of the claims and arguments in this thread using a word other than 'god', especially if I used something silly like 'Flying Purple People Eater', I suspect at some point and time someone would try to have me committed for being insane. It’s funny though that we can accept these words, statements, and arguments when someone uses the word 'god' instead.
Edited by mikeinnaples, 10 November 2011 - 01:16 PM.
The Sun came up this morning here in California where I live. I know it did through my senses of sight. I am not a skeptic of that, even if some are. I ‘believe’ the sun will come up tomorrow, though I have no direct evidence of it. It is faith based on past history as well as experience. Faith has its reasons.
I observed that the sun came up this morning. I will see the sun come up before you will in California. You don't have to have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow because all you have to do is jump on the computer and pull up a web cam of the sunrise at any point in time of the day, because it will always be rising somewhere. That is not faith at all. In order for the sun not to rise, either the earth has to get thrown out of orbit or the sun will have to shut off like a light. Either way, it will be directly observable.
Again, what kind of evidence do you want of a Flying Purple People Eater who is a spiritual being. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However it is real. A relationship with the Flying Purple People Eater, is found through the faith of the believer. The Flying Purple People Eater is also real. You want to believe in the Flying Purple People Eater and know the Flying Purple People Eater? I suggest you start by putting your small faith in the possibility of there being a Flying Purple People Eater. Perhaps the world will start looking different.
You are right about me looking at the world differently if I followed the advice above, because I would be doing it from behind the pane of a small 4"x4" window in my padded room at a mental institution.
shadowhawk, on 09 November 2011 - 05:26 PM, said: Since you have never identified what “evidence you accept,” what is, “unambiguous evidence?” God is an uncaused cause. Who made God, is a question my parents were asking me when I was eight years old. How about a tough one, how can a caused cosmos exist if the cause is caused? playpus: Unambiguous evidence would be something that could only be explained by the existence of gods. You can cease with the philosophical "proofs" as they can all be rebutted - this current one simply by offering the simpler explanation that the multiverse is an uncaused cause in itself.
Since you have rebutted no philosophical proofs, I await your rebuttal. Prove the multi verse is an uncaused cause, and I will not accept any “unambiguous evidence.” I suspect you are a believer. Believe what you will, there is no such thing as ‘Unambiguous proof,” for anything.
Shadowhawk: Evolutionist and Biologist are not the same thing. Don’t you know that? Neither term identifies whether one is a theist or not. plsypus But I don't know what an "evolutionist" is. Someone who accepts the evidence-based 20th century scientific worldview
There is no 20th century world view. There are many world views in the 20th century. There are many competing evolutionist world views. Always have been, surely you know that.
I was speaking of a major evolutionary thinker Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., helped to discover the genetic misspellings that cause cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease, and a rare form of premature aging called progeria. A pioneer gene hunter, he led the Human Genome Project from 1993 until 2008. For his revolutionary contributions to genetic research, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2007, and the National Medal of Science in 2009. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has a longstanding interest in the interface between science and faith.
Here is this scientist I referred to, 20th century world view.
Again, what kind of evidence do you want of a Flying Purple People Eater who is a spiritual being. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However it is real. A relationship with the Flying Purple People Eater, is found through the faith of the believer. The Flying Purple People Eater is also real. You want to believe in the Flying Purple People Eater and know the Flying Purple People Eater? I suggest you start by putting your small faith in the possibility of there being a Flying Purple People Eater. Perhaps the world will start looking different.
You are right about me looking at the world differently if I followed the advice above, because I would be doing it from behind the pane of a small 4"x4" window in my padded room at a mental institution.
The Sun came up this morning here in California where I live. I know it did through my senses of sight. I am not a skeptic of that, even if some are. I ‘believe’ the sun will come up tomorrow, though I have no direct evidence of it. It is faith based on past history as well as experience. Faith has its reasons.
I observed that the sun came up this morning. I will see the sun come up before you will in California. You don't have to have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow because all you have to do is jump on the computer and pull up a web cam of the sunrise at any point in time of the day, because it will always be rising somewhere. That is not faith at all. In order for the sun not to rise, either the earth has to get thrown out of orbit or the sun will have to shut off like a light. Either way, it will be directly observable.
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
