LOL at atheist "logic" (more like nonsense!)

[Mirdath]

But why is this either/or? Isn’t natural for the human mind to wonder why we are here? And of course, all human societies have confronted the issue of “what do we do now”. This is not unique to atheists.

It may be natural, but is it that important? The answer won’t change anything in the present – so, from a point of view which excludes the likelihood of an afterlife that requires Thinking About This, it’s quite optional. And since it’s impossible to satisfactorily prove either way, well…why bother? It may be natural when one has nothing better to do

No, that’s not the same as me because I believe I began as a thought of God. I believe He made my body and infused me with my unique soul at the moment of conception. I’m not a random collision of cells, but a being of both a spiritual and physical nature created by God Himself.

Do you then claim to understand the sum and totality of human existence? They are human, you are human; they do not understand everything, you do not understand everything. That’s what I meant by ‘just like you’.

 

[Atreyu]

I was brought up extremely hard-line Catholic, so yes I’m familiar with the mysteries of the Rosary

As to your word-substitution – I do not see how this is much different from the practice of gematria

In a few words, because it is not numerology. Take the typology of Mary, for example. In the letter to the Hebrews, we find out that the Ark of the Covenant contains three things: the word of God (the Ten Commandments), a symbol of the high priesthood (Aaron’s priestly staff), and the bread of life (the manna). Now Jesus is the word of God, Jesus is the true high priest and Jesus is the true bread of life. Couple this together with the beginning of the gospel of Luke, where Mary’s journey to Elizabeth is extremely similar to the story of when David recovers the Ark of the Covenant, and one can reasonably surmise that the authors of these two books believed that Mary was the Ark of the Covenant. But was it the human authors, or the divine? That is the question… For Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant, I will concede that there is no evidence that it was a divine author, rather than the human authors (however, it still could be there due to the divine author; there is just no positive evidence for it).

While I can’t speak for the Quran, allegory in the form of hidden metaphors is hardly only a Christian invention, or only religious at all. Prophets and fiction-writers alike hide meaning in fable.

Exactly! So now you have a problem with these allegories and hidden metaphors, as it is a fact that the books of the Old Testament were written centuries before Christ, but it is these very same books that contain the allegories and hidden metaphors about Christ! So for a prophet or author of these books to have hidden these metaphors of Christ, they must have had foreknowledge of him! Do you see what I’m getting at?

Step 1, build a time machine! There really isn’t a way to tell if it’s ‘close enough’ without a copy of the original to go by.

But I’m a physicist, and I know that travelling back in time is impossible! Maybe one day we will be able to travel forward in time, but I’m not convinced about the theory of worm-holes yet…

Actually this is one of the benefits of being non-theist – we’re allowed not to care why it exists! Rather the more pressing issue is that, since it does, what do we do now?

Pascal’s wager!

I saw that in your sig, congratulations! Both of those words are actually on loan from French, and ‘blond/e’ are already losing their strict gender associations

A pity, to be sure. We also seem to be losing the word “due”, at least on these forums. I can’t believe the number of times I see Americans use the word “do” when they really mean “due”. I think it must be because they pronounce the two words in the same way (whereas most English speaking countries would pronounce “due” as something like “dyu” - or something similar even to “jew”).

I’ve yet to meet an atheist who claims to understand the sum and totality of human existence. They just don’t believe a deity specifically put them there and get along with their lives as best they can. Same as you, except they can sleep in Sunday mornings.

Yes you’re right, most atheists are just apathetic. I was too, for many years. But then I started asking questions, and I just couldn’t refute the answers - they made too much sense! I hope you stick around Mirdath, you might be surprised at what happens… That is, if you dare

 

[Eden]

It may be natural, but is it that important?

Is writing poetry important? Or creating art? Why should the human mind restrict itself only to what seems practical when there are great delights to be found in a mind that ponders the meaning of our existence?

The answer won’t change anything in the present – so, from a point of view which excludes the likelihood of an afterlife that requires Thinking About This, it’s quite optional.

It’s optional to paint a landscape or to listen to a masterpiece by Mozart, as well, but what a dull world to restrict ourselves to what is practical.

And since it’s impossible to satisfactorily prove either way, well…why bother? It may be natural when one has nothing better to do

Yes, why bother to wonder about the meaning of existence when there are more important things to do like putter around on the computer?

Do you then claim to understand the sum and totality of human existence? They are human, you are human; they do not understand everything, you do not understand everything. That’s what I meant by ‘just like you’.

Actually, you said “They just don’t believe a deity specifically put them there and get along with their lives as best they can. Same as you, except they can sleep in Sunday mornings.” And I said that they are not “just like me”, except they sleep in on Sunday mornings, since I believe a deity specifically put me here.

 

[Mirdath]

In a few words, because it is not numerology. Take the typology of Mary, for example. In the letter to the Hebrews, we find out that the Ark of the Covenant contains three things: the word of God (the Ten Commandments), a symbol of the high priesthood (Aaron’s priestly staff), and the bread of life (the manna). Now Jesus is the word of God, Jesus is the true high priest and Jesus is the true bread of life. Couple this together with the beginning of the gospel of Luke, where Mary’s journey to Elizabeth is extremely similar to the story of when David recovers the Ark of the Covenant, and one can reasonably surmise that the authors of these two books believed that Mary was the Ark of the Covenant. But was it the human authors, or the divine? That is the question… For Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant, I will concede that there is no evidence that it was a divine author, rather than the human authors (however, it still could be there due to the divine author; there is just no positive evidence for it).

How about I just leave you to that – like I said, it’s not a unique concept in legends across the world and it hasn’t converted me to any religion

Exactly! So now you have a problem with these allegories and hidden metaphors, as it is a fact that the books of the Old Testament were written centuries before Christ, but it is these very same books that contain the allegories and hidden metaphors about Christ! So for a prophet or author of these books to have hidden these metaphors of Christ, they must have had foreknowledge of him! Do you see what I’m getting at?

Well, they have prophecies of a messiah, which the people who originally wrote those books still do not believe has come – so it can be taken different ways. People are very good at believing what they want to believe; it’s much like the human talent for recognizing distorted ‘faces’ in inanimate objects like cars, the wallpaper, the wood-grain in the backs of pews (some sermons when I was younger were very, very long…).

Pascal’s wager!

Has so many holes in it it’s not even funny How does the Wager arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is correct, instead of Hinduism or Islam or even one of the ‘joke’ religions that became popular in America in the last several decades like Discordianism? Additionally, belief by force of the Wager could be argued not to constitute true belief as it is forced by the assumption that one is damned if one does not accept.

A pity, to be sure. We also seem to be losing the word “due”, at least on these forums. I can’t believe the number of times I see Americans use the word “do” when they really mean “due”. I think it must be because they pronounce the two words in the same way (whereas most English speaking countries would pronounce “due” as something like “dyu” - or something similar even to “jew”).

augh, don’t get me started… I haven’t seen ‘do process’ yet but I’m sure it’s not far off

Yes you’re right, most atheists are just apathetic. I was too, for many years. But then I started asking questions, and I just couldn’t refute the answers - they made too much sense! I hope you stick around Mirdath, you might be surprised at what happens… That is, if you dare

Apathetic in regard to that particular question, that is

 

[Mirdath]

Is writing poetry important? Or creating art? Why should the human mind restrict itself only to what seems practical when there are great delights to be found in a mind that ponders the meaning of our existence?

Not all poetry is Paradise Lost, not all art is The Last Judgement. Art too has purpose without God; it creates beauty, inspires, delights, and instructs humans, and generally makes things a lot happier on this particular ball of dirt

It’s optional to paint a landscape or to listen to a masterpiece by Mozart, as well, but what a dull world to restrict ourselves to what is practical.

Indeed. I did not say practicality is the only virtue.

Yes, why bother to wonder about the meaning of existence when there are more important things to do like putter around on the computer?

Well now look at what you’ve done to us all!

Actually, you said “They just don’t believe a deity specifically put them there and get along with their lives as best they can. Same as you, except they can sleep in Sunday mornings.” And I said that they are not “just like me”, except they sleep in on Sunday mornings, since I believe a deity specifically put me here.

You get along with your life as best you can too, don’t you? I hope so.

 

[Atreyu]

How about I just leave you to that – like I said, it’s not a unique concept in legends across the world and it hasn’t converted me to any religion

Fair enough. Check out that link though, I reckon you’ll find the sheer number of references to the mysteries of the rosary quite impressive, even if you do think they are contrived.

Well, they have prophecies of a messiah, which the people who originally wrote those books still do not believe has come – so it can be taken different ways. People are very good at believing what they want to believe; it’s much like the human talent for recognizing distorted ‘faces’ in inanimate objects like cars, the wallpaper, the wood-grain in the backs of pews (some sermons when I was younger were very, very long…).

Well, I didn’t want to believe in Christianity, and I particularly didn’t want to believe in Catholicism. I’m sure there are many more people on this forum that were once in a similar situation to me in this respect. As for prophecies, a prophecy can be fulfilled by sheer blind luck, that is true, but just how many prophecies does it take before one begins to think that something else is going on? Can you show me fulfilled prophecies in some other religions? Prophecies that didn’t occur after the fact of course

Has so many holes in it it’s not even funny How does the Wager arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is correct, instead of Hinduism or Islam or even one of the ‘joke’ religions that became popular in America in the last several decades like Discordianism? Additionally, belief by force of the Wager could be argued not to constitute true belief as it is forced by the assumption that one is damned if one does not accept.

Go back and take a look as to why I mentioned Pacal’s wager. I was trying to suggest that Pascal’s wager provides us with some motivation into seeking the truth about the existence or non-existence of God. Just like the Cosmological Argument, the wager in itself proves nothing about the attributes of this hypothetical God.

Apathetic in regard to that particular question, that is

To tell the truth (and this is no slight on atheists here), I think apathy is rampant in Western society. It surely is in Australia. I’ve been involved a little bit in the union at my University, and I’ve seen first-hand just how apathetic people can be. I really think people care about stuff, they are just too lazy about doing something about it! I’m the same, to tell the truth, and I think that’s something I need to work on. Anyway, sorry for going off-topic here!

 

[Mijoy2]

Faith is by definition irrational, as Kierkegaard wrote it requires a leap in judgement. God is not obvious; he is, after all, supernatural – cannot be seen, cannot be touched, cannot even truly be known to mortal minds. And mortal minds are all we’ve got, barring the postulated existence of an afterlife – by which time it won’t even matter.

Neither belief nor its absence is a mental disorder. What you do with them might be.

Can you stop calling non-theists stupid? They have not made an irrational leap of faith, which is perfectly within their rights, and are struggling for understanding in their own way. An average atheist is just as intelligent as an average Catholic.

Also, insults won’t win you any converts.

I agree with most of this post. However the Revelation of God through His word, then, word made flesh, rationalizes the otherwise irrational. However I’d say “to a degree”.

The issue I have with many atheists (as opposed to someone who calls himself agnostic) is the ruling out of a theist. They may feel they do not have enough evidence to support a God, however I cannot see how they can rule one out completely.

 

[Mijoy2]

[Pascals Wager] Has so many holes in it it’s not even funny How does the Wager arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is correct, instead of Hinduism or Islam or even one of the ‘joke’ religions that became popular in America in the last several decades like Discordianism? Additionally, belief by force of the Wager could be argued not to constitute true belief as it is forced by the assumption that one is damned if one does not accept.

Not sure I agree with this. Pascal’s Wager breaks down if you accept the fundementalist’s argument that all those who have not accepted Jesus as thier Lord and Savior ( jews, muslims, JW, atheists, buddists, hindus virtually most of the world) all go to eternal flames.

Catholics don’t believe this (as stated by the fundementalists). If Pascal’s Wager is more the concept of not seeing the sinfullness of one’s ways, not doing the best they can to love one’s neighbor, not attempting to follow the law written on thier hearts and therefore facing eternal damnation, then Pascals Wager can make sense.

Personally nobody can tell me Pascal’s Wager is a useless concept. It was a twist to Pascal’s Wager that brought me back to faith and strengthened and healed my life to a very significant degree.

I began my search by listening to the Fundementalists on Christian radio. The fact that I had ignored my childrens faith throughout thier life and therefore there was a chance (wager if I didn’t quickly turn things around) that I woulld responsible for thier eternal damnation. This thought brought me to my knees. Eventually, my heart turned back to my childhood faith, the Roman Catholic Church.

Point being, Pacals Wager (or a slight twist to it) helped bring me to faith. I see it ias a good thing. A few holes maybe, but I get Pascals’ point loud and clear .

 

[Mirdath]

Fair enough. Check out that link though, I reckon you’ll find the sheer number of references to the mysteries of the rosary quite impressive, even if you do think they are contrived.

The mysteries of the rosary were written around the bible, so a good fit is quite understandable

Well, I didn’t want to believe in Christianity, and I particularly didn’t want to believe in Catholicism. I’m sure there are many more people on this forum that were once in a similar situation to me in this respect. As for prophecies, a prophecy can be fulfilled by sheer blind luck, that is true, but just how many prophecies does it take before one begins to think that something else is going on? Can you show me fulfilled prophecies in some other religions? Prophecies that didn’t occur after the fact of course

How about Hernan Cortes fulfilling the Aztec prophecy of Quetzalcoatl coming from across the sea? According to Frances Braden, the prophecies said Quetzalcoatl would be white, light of hair and bearded, and wore a robe with crosses upon it. That’s a lot more specific than any prophecies of the Messiah. For another, the Dalai Lama is one big prophecy-fulfillment every generation.

Go back and take a look as to why I mentioned Pacal’s wager. I was trying to suggest that Pascal’s wager provides us with some motivation into seeking the truth about the existence or non-existence of God. Just like the Cosmological Argument, the wager in itself proves nothing about the attributes of this hypothetical God.

Well, all you said was ‘Pascal’s Wager!’ so it was a little hard to figure out what you meant If that’s all the motivation you need – great – but it takes more to get me started.

Mijoy2:

I agree with most of this post. However the Revelation of God through His word, then, word made flesh, rationalizes the otherwise irrational. However I’d say “to a degree”.

It may rationalize it for someone who has made that leap of faith, but to an outsider it’s still on the same level of logic.

The issue I have with many atheists (as opposed to someone who calls himself agnostic) is the ruling out of a theist. They may feel they do not have enough evidence to support a God, however I cannot see how they can rule one out completely.

I don’t see how ruling one out would work either – they have to have faith

Pacals Wager (or a slight twist to it) helped bring me to faith. I see it ias a good thing. A few holes maybe, but I get Pascals’ point loud and clear .

It’s an interesting but heavily flawed logical argument for belief. Glad it worked for you

 

[ricmat]

How about Hernan Cortes fulfilling the Aztec prophecy of Quetzalcoatl coming from across the sea? According to Frances Braden, the prophecies said Quetzalcoatl would be white, light of hair and bearded, and wore a robe with crosses upon it. That’s a lot more specific than any prophecies of the Messiah.

Funny you should mention that so close to Dec 12.

The Aztec prophecies were actually key aspects related to the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico in 1531. The Spaniards were having little luck converting the natives to Catholicism, but after our Lady appeared (and left the miraculous tilma behind), 9 million indians converted over a 10 year period, the largest mass conversion in history.

The tilma was covered with a “non-printed” image of Mary, full of aztec symbolism, and fulfilling aztec prophecies.

The story of Our Lady of Guadalupe is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING, and I recommend that you read about it.

It seems that even pagan prophecies can be used in the advancement of God’s kingdom.

And on another subject talked about above: The laws of the universe did not HAVE to come out the way they did. Saying e.g. that mass is a property of matter really doesn’t say anything. Gravity COULD have come out of a randomly created big bang as repulsive rather than attractive. Electrons and protons could have had properties that caused them to repel instead of attract, etc. “Natural Laws” are DESIGNED to be the way they are - which results in a livable universe.

 

[Mirdath]

The tilma was covered with a “non-printed” image of Mary, full of aztec symbolism, and fulfilling aztec prophecies.

The story of Our Lady of Guadalupe is ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING, and I recommend that you read about it.

It seems that even pagan prophecies can be used in the advancement of God’s kingdom.

It’s a beautiful story and while I’ve not studied it exhaustively I do know mostly how it goes

However, it’s not without its critics. By 1556 the local head of the Franciscan order disparaged it as having been painted by Marcos. Somewhat more recently an expert in art restoration, Jose Sol Rosales, examined the tilma with a microscope and found naturally-occurring pigments and brushstrokes consistent with art of that time.

And on another subject talked about above: The laws of the universe did not HAVE to come out the way they did. Saying e.g. that mass is a property of matter really doesn’t say anything. Gravity COULD have come out of a randomly created big bang as repulsive rather than attractive. Electrons and protons could have had properties that caused them to repel instead of attract, etc. “Natural Laws” are DESIGNED to be the way they are - which results in a livable universe.

Mass is the quality by which matter is defined. Mass is presence in a tangible form. It says quite a lot – it says ‘this exists, touch it, hold it in your hand and feel its weight’. Gravity is a function of mass; unless mass is negative, it cannot by definition be a repulsive force.

Similarly, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces are properties of the fundamental components of the universe, matter and energy.

So I would not say that the laws of nature are necessarily the product of design.

Here’s something else interesting – the ‘universal constants’ are being found to be somewhat less than constant. The speed of light is changing.

 

[ricmat]

Mass is the quality by which matter is defined. Mass is presence in a tangible form. It says quite a lot – it says ‘this exists, touch it, hold it in your hand and feel its weight’. Gravity is a function of mass; unless mass is negative, it cannot by definition be a repulsive force.

Similarly, the electromagnetic force and the weak and strong nuclear forces are properties of the fundamental components of the universe, matter and energy.

So I would not say that the laws of nature are necessarily the product of design.

Here’s something else interesting – the ‘universal constants’ are being found to be somewhat less than constant. The speed of light is changing.

You’re still not getting it. Laws have lawgivers. Mass has gravity because a lawmaker said it would have it. Electromagnetic forces are properties of matter because a lawmaker made it so.

When I said that the laws of the universe could have come out differently (with no real universe as a result), I’m not speaking from a religious sense or a philosophical sense. It’s a scientific fact. The laws of the universe, including “properties” were all defined within a few seconds (or maybe milliseconds) of the initial big bang. Gravity COULD have come out repulsive, and if it had, matter would never have coalesced.

Protons and electrons COULD have come out repulsive with the same result.

The universe COULD have come out with more or less dimensions. Gravity could have come out as a force which drops off linearly instead of as the square of the distance.

This was all defined during the first few (milli) seconds of creation.

The way scientists avoid the inevitable conclusion - that the universe was designed, is to postulate the existence of an infinite number of universes, and the only one that “made it” is the one we live in.

Frankly, I find the idea of a designer God to be much more plausible, and actually less dependent on “faith” than the existence of an infinite number of universes.

Besides, when you start to invoke the infinite, your’re sort of talking about God anyhow

 

[Mirdath]

You’re still not getting it. Laws have lawgivers. Mass has gravity because a lawmaker said it would have it. Electromagnetic forces are properties of matter because a lawmaker made it so.

I get it quite well, thanks. The giver of natural law need not be sentient; in my view that giver is the fact of existence, no more, no less.

The way scientists avoid the inevitable conclusion - that the universe was designed, is to postulate the existence of an infinite number of universes, and the only one that “made it” is the one we live in.

They don’t even have to do that. Matter, by the mere fact of being, possesses mass. Mass acts upon mass by the mere fact of there being two objects in proximity. This action is gravity. Natural laws are functions of the universe as it exists.

Besides, when you start to invoke the infinite, your’re sort of talking about God anyhow

lim (x->∞) x = God?

 

[ricmat]

It’s a beautiful story and while I’ve not studied it exhaustively I do know mostly how it goes

However, it’s not without its critics. By 1556 the local head of the Franciscan order disparaged it as having been painted by Marcos. Somewhat more recently an expert in art restoration, Jose Sol Rosales, examined the tilma with a microscope and found naturally-occurring pigments and brushstrokes consistent with art of that time.

Yes, of course it has critics

It is standard procedure in “possible miracle” cases like this to bring in a “devil’s advocate” – a professional critic.

And although I’m not sure, perhaps Mr. Rosales examined the “retouches” which admittedly are in the tilma.

But for an alternative view (no pun intended) of the image:

clairval.com/lettres/en/2003/12/12/2171203.htm

An excerpt:

The most moving experience of my life

In 1936, an examination conducted on two fibers from the tilma, one red and the other yellow, led to an astounding finding—the fibers contained no known coloring agent. Ophthalmology and optics confirm the inexplicable nature of the Image—it seems to be a slide projected onto the fabric. Closer analysis shows that there is no trace of drawing or sketching under the color, even though perfectly recognizable retouches were done on the original, retouches which moreover have deteriorated with time. In addition, the background never received any primer, which seems inexplicable if it is truly a painting, for even on the finest fabric, a coat is always applied, if only to prevent the fabric from absorbing the painting and the threads from breaking the surface. No brush strokes can be detected. After an infrared analysis conducted on May 7, 1979, a professor from NASA wrote, «There is no way to explain the quality of the pigments used for the pink dress, the blue veil, the face and the hands, or the permanence of the colors, or the vividness of the colors after several centuries, during which they ordinarily should have deteriorated… Studying this Image has been the most moving experience of my life.»

 

[ricmat]

I get it quite well, thanks. The giver of natural law need not be sentient; in my view that giver is the fact of existence, no more, no less.

They don’t even have to do that. Matter, by the mere fact of being, possesses mass. Mass acts upon mass by the mere fact of there being two objects in proximity. This action is gravity. Natural laws are functions of the universe as it exists.

lim (x->∞) x = God?

OK - so matter by the mere fact of being posesses mass (which attracts other mass). Why is it attractive and not repulsive?

You didn’t addressed the **scientific fact **that the laws of the universe were created within the first few seconds of the big bang, and that they could have come out differently.

The key ingredient which makes our universe even remotely livable is the amount of energy present in the big bang. I don’t have the exact number at my fingertips, but I’ll try to get within a factor of a million

If the energy imparted to the big bang had been more or less by a factor of 1 in 10 to the 93rd power, the universe would consist of exactly zilch. It wouldn’t just be a bit different, it wouldn’t exist at all.

In all our pride and glory, we can’t control anything with that degree of precision. We’re lucky to do 1 part in 10 to the 20. We can’t even imagine doing it because it’s below the level of things we can even theoretically detect, much less control.

Doesn’t this make you wonder?

Doesn’t this shake your faith? If not, why not?

 

[ribozyme]

OK - so matter by the mere fact of being posesses mass (which attracts other mass). Why is it attractive and not repulsive?

You didn’t addressed the **scientific fact **that the laws of the universe were created within the first few seconds of the big bang, and that they could have come out differently.

The key ingredient which makes our universe even remotely livable is the amount of energy present in the big bang. I don’t have the exact number at my fingertips, but I’ll try to get within a factor of a million

If the energy imparted to the big bang had been more or less by a factor of 1 in 10 to the 93rd power, the universe would consist of exactly zilch. It wouldn’t just be a bit different, it wouldn’t exist at all.

In all our pride and glory, we can’t control anything with that degree of precision. We’re lucky to do 1 part in 10 to the 20. We can’t even imagine doing it because it’s below the level of things we can even theoretically detect, much less control.

Doesn’t this make you wonder?

Doesn’t this shake your faith? If not, why not?

I never heard this before… where is your source for statements of this nature?

 

[ricmat]

I never heard this before… where is your source for statements of this nature?

The original source(s) were some books I read about 10 years ago. There were a whole series of them by (as I recall) Gerald Schroeder and Paul Davies, both PhD physics guys. Don’t necessarily believe that I spelled their names right.

The only actual book name I remember, probably because of the catchy title is “Genesis and the Big Bang”, which was the first of the series. Several others followed along the same lines but with different arguments. These books are at least 10 years old, but now and then I come across similar ones.

I checked all my bookmarks - I’m sorry to say I can’t find the recent articles I read along the same lines.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Ribozyme;

Probably no less an authority than Steven Weinberg in his article, “Life in the Universe,” Scientific American, October 1994.

The pertinent quote is “Life as we know it would be impossible if any of several physical quantities had slightly different values…One constant does seem to require incredible fine tuning.”

The constant Weinberg is referring to is the energy of the Big Bang which he quantifies the tuning as one part in 10 to 120th.

Yes, Ribozyme, if the energy of the Big Bang were different by one part out of

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000

there would be NO life anywhere in our universe.

Pax Christi,

Jonathan

 

[ricmat]

Ribozyme;

Probably no less an authority than Steven Weinberg in his article, “Life in the Universe,” Scientific American, October 1994.

The pertinent quote is “Life as we know it would be impossible if any of several physical quantities had slightly different values…One constant does seem to require incredible fine tuning.”

The constant Weinberg is referring to is the energy of the Big Bang which he quantifies the tuning as one part in 10 to 120th.

Yes, Ribozyme, if the energy of the Big Bang were different by one part out of

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000

there would be NO life anywhere in our universe.

Pax Christi,

Jonathan

Thanks for the real number. My attempt to guess within a factor of a million failed. Fortunately, the real number makes an even better case

 

[Mirdath]

OK - so matter by the mere fact of being posesses mass (which attracts other mass). Why is it attractive and not repulsive?

Because it is.

You didn’t addressed the **scientific fact **that the laws of the universe were created within the first few seconds of the big bang, and that they could have come out differently.

Created? That’s something of a loaded term. Things just happened to fall out that way. They could have come out differently, true, and then we wouldn’t be here talking about it – at least, probably not the way we are now. The Anthropic Principle is flawed – we may be the way we are because of how the universe is, but it doesn’t go both ways.

The key ingredient which makes our universe even remotely livable is the amount of energy present in the big bang. I don’t have the exact number at my fingertips, but I’ll try to get within a factor of a million

If the energy imparted to the big bang had been more or less by a factor of 1 in 10 to the 93rd power, the universe would consist of exactly zilch. It wouldn’t just be a bit different, it wouldn’t exist at all.

The universe as we know it. As for any other possibilities, we don’t know, and as far as we know we can’t know.

In all our pride and glory, we can’t control anything with that degree of precision. We’re lucky to do 1 part in 10 to the 20. We can’t even imagine doing it because it’s below the level of things we can even theoretically detect, much less control.

We’re getting there though

Doesn’t this make you wonder?

Not particularly.

Doesn’t this shake your faith? If not, why not?

Nope. Why not? For the simple reason that I wouldn’t exist any other way. I’m not afraid of not knowing things; all it does is make me curious, and I don’t feel any need to accept the first answer I’m given that ‘someone must have been responsible for it!’. The existence of an immaterial, unprovable Creator has less logical grounding than even an extremely low-probability chance. One must accept divine creation on faith; one can point to a chart and say ‘this is how likely it was to have come out how it did anyway’.