life is random........

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Jul 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    I'm not sure how you make that leap. It relies on the notion that a universe with (a small amount of) life is more favourable than a universe of hydrogen gas or black holes and so has to be designed that way.

    I don't see how a) our kind of universe is more desirable except to us, who make up the most miniscule amount of our universe, and b) how the fact we've got our universe, whether it's more desirable or not, demonstrates that it must have been designed.
    test
  2. Look im Gangsta

    Look im Gangsta New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    58,433
    Err, no Riz. It's a FACT and it's a STRONG CASE for an architect.
    test
  3. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    My point was that it DIDN'T have to be designed this way. of all the ways the laws of nature could've been, they created a highly delicate balance that gave rise to complex structures of stars, galaxies, nebulae, and planets. and this eventually led to life.

    I find it unlikely that a universe created by random chance would lead to complex structures, crowned by life, unless there were numerous iterations in time and/or space. However, I demonstrated how modern cosmology doesn't favor an ocean of universes, which is what you'd need for the random chance scenario to be probable.

    although this is not hard proof of god (which I don't think there will be), it is a strong argument for the existence of an architect that favored the formation of life.
    test
  4. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    I'm tempted to start calling it soccer again.
    test
  5. snowy

    snowy 39k Rap Song Music Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    4,590
    Why are multiple Universes needed? Modern cosmology may not favor an ocean of Universes, it does however support an ocean of Galaxies. But WHY is 1 Universe not enough. Did you even see that number i posted. Why is 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 stars each with the possibility of planets not enough possible iterations?

    Even ONE galaxy, ours, holds an estimated 200-400 BILLION stars.

    Now IF out of all those stars we're the only one with a intelligent species on it, then and only then would I see a strong argument being made. But making such a claim without first exploring every single star or atleast a massive amount of them is stupid.

    test
  6. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    of course, there's a great possibility that life has arisen elsewhere, in this galaxy and numerous others. I'd be shocked if we were alone in the universe. simple life is probably fairly common, with more complex life being less common. Intelligent/sentient species are most likely relatively rare. But even if there's only one sentient race per galaxy (a low estimate), that still allows for many alien civilizations.

    life on earth did not require God to reach down and ignite it. It needed CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, sulphur) which were created in the furnaces of stars. It also needed an environment with some resources and shelter, which the earth has in abundance (including shelter from cosmic rays).

    and based on extremophiles, who's to say that life can't exist in many different environments on other planets? It's proven itself to be highly adaptable here after all.

    But it's different when you look at the universe as a whole. The laws of physics and chemistry are consistent as far as we know, whether you're at earth, saturn, arcturus, or the andromeda galaxy. the laws that govern matter and space have created a complex environment suitable for life. there are many other ways the big bang could've turned out, many of them hostile to the formation of life.

    The fact that the universe turned out the way it did strongly suggests a creator to me.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    u are incorrect it does have an end, like it had a begining
    test
  8. Look im Gangsta

    Look im Gangsta New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Messages:
    58,433
    I'm not being pedantic. It's not mistakenly using one term instead of another.
    test
  9. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Why? This is the bit I don't get.

    Evolution shows us that complex lifeforms started very simply and developed over time in small building blocks. Given the age of the universe there's no reason to suspect that wasn't enough time. There doesn't need to be numerous iterations for complex life.

    And the universe certainly isn't built towards it. Even if we assume there's complex life on, say, a million other planets, that still means the VAST majority of the universe is without life. On this planet, it's estimated that 99% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. It's a constant struggle to survive. The universe is clearly hostile towards life.

    Which raises the point that even if the universe was designed with the aim of creating complex life, it wasn't designed very well.
    test
  10. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Well i say human life because i believe its a special kind of life. A self conscious life, a purpose driven life. Unique. Much less probability of finding it elsewhere than say a organism
    test
  11. JASON ANTHONY

    JASON ANTHONY White Devil

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    18,499
    snowy blew my mind.

    no homo
    test
  12. Mrjdm998

    Mrjdm998 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7,040
    You completely avoided the question. Earth may just be the 1 in a million which worked out. Look at just the other planets in our solar system for example.
    test
  13. snowy

    snowy 39k Rap Song Music Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    4,590
    Well thats just foolish pride which I thought was some sort of Sin. Man is no more special than the non-intelligent species on this planet. For all our intelligence we have a severe lack of wisdom. And the presence of other hominids in the past who used tools, fire, shelter and buried thier dead among other similar human actions again calls into question this point of view that we are unique.

    I agree that theres less probability to find human life out there, but my point was that we dont need to search for Human life. They could be the evolution of reptiles or insects or fish or something completely foreign to anything we could conceive of.
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    riz if you dont stop being so bleak i shad be forced to thrance you with various fruits and vegatables, on behalf of the universe
    test
  15. x calibur

    x calibur

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 1999
    Messages:
    54,201
    that is true. but I'm referring to the overall outcome of the big bang, the basic structure of matter, energy, and chemistry, and the patterns of galaxies, stars, and planets.

    the hostility of the universe towards life is relative. I would disagree with it not being designed well for life. it is true that there are vast stretches of empty space, with hazards such as pulsars and black holes. it is also true that many planets are either burning hot or cryogenically cold. but looking at the earth, there is an enormous variety of life here in all kinds of habitats. There is life that exists around hydrothermal vents, hot geysers, antarctic ice, and the dark depths of the ocean. in spite of mass extinctions, life has occupied almost every niche conceivable. and who knows what exobiology will reveal? the universe has given rise to at least one species with sentience, and there may be others.

    the fact is that the universe is precisely balanced in a way that makes all this possible. if stars were to burn out very quickly, like on the order of centuries, there wouldn't be time for life to evolve. if planets didn't form for whatever reason, such as a weak gravitational force, it would be far more difficult for life to develop. the hydrogen gas universe or black hole universe could've easily been the outcome, but it was not.

    I'm going to run with reggie jax' bridge analogy. according to his source, a particular bridge hand has a 1 in 600 billion chance of being drawn. our universe, with its support of life, is like a gigantic royal flush, going sequentially from 2 of spades to ace of spades (or from ace to king). you could argue that it is a 1 in 600 billion chance like any other hand. but this ignores the pattern, the precise balance and order in the hand. it is far more likely to get a jumbled hand than one with such elegance.

    now if you had 600 billion bridge hands laid out on a table, the chances are pretty high that this combination would appear at least once. that is the "ocean multiverse" scenario I described. but since current cosmology points away from that, it seems that this is the one hand that was dealt. if you get this gigantic royal flush hand on the first try, it is highly likely that there was some sort of intelligence that put those cards into place, rather than random chance.

    and so, our highly complex, stable universe, with vast diversity of life as well as sentience on at least one planet, is most likely the result of intelligent design.
    test
  16. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    I've got some minor quibbles with the rest of your post but I wanna concentrate on this because I think it's the most important point.

    Say there was another universe. It developed as a hydrogen gas universe or any other example. It would have its own set of laws and its own idiosyncrasies. It would be, in its own way, elegant. It probably wouldn't have a conscious organism living inside it to think that it might have all been designed that way. But why would the lack of life or intelligence make it any less designed? On a cosmological scale, humans/animals are no different than a ball of hydrogen or comet or a black hole.

    In Dawkins' THE ANCESTOR'S TALE, he tells the story of evolution in a backwards way, starting with us and going back to the beginning. He stresses the point that although to us it might appear that evolution was working towards humans, that clearly isn't the case. He's starting the backwards story with us but it could just as easily be told with any other species. The evolution of species on this planet developed in a way that, millions of years later, one species popped up that could observe the very process it was apart of. But evolution wasn't designing it that way; it's just the way it happened to happen.

    It seems to me you're doing a similar thing with the universe. You're starting with us, working your way backwards to the beginning and reaching the conclusion (IMO falsely) that it must have all been designed towards us.
    test
  17. Mrjdm998

    Mrjdm998 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    7,040
    test
  18. snowy

    snowy 39k Rap Song Music Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    4,590
    Man you write it out and you still dont get it...

    You're basically making the case that the ONLY WAY that someone could get that hand is if the dealer stacked the deck. Thats simply not the case.

    Plus if the 600 Billion is the number you go with than the several sextillion number estimation of stars would allow for quite a few royal flushes by the end of the dealt hands..
    test
  19. snowy

    snowy 39k Rap Song Music Folder

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    4,590
    You dont seem to get numbers.

    And you keep bringing up this Ocean of Universes idea. Like I said before its not even needed. ITS NOT NEEDED.

    ITS NOT NEEDED!1!!

    600 Billion (Stars) is the equivalent to 3-5 small galaxies. We've already found thousands upon thousands of galaxies.
    test
  20. reggie_jax

    reggie_jax rapper noyd

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,437
    here is where i think you are making a leap. you're jumping from saying that something is improbable to saying that something is necessarily 'fixed.'

    if we're talking sheer probability then it's also unlikely that an alternative universe with a different set of parameters that would not have allowed for complex chemical structures would arise with the exact parameters that it had. if it is merely the universal constants which direct matter and energy in our universe that seem unlikely without an inherent bias towards what the results mean, then we could consider the arisal of any universe with any set of parameters to be improbable.

    it is thus for some other reason that we conclude that a universe which supports chemical complexity (along with a small amount of life for a short period of its duration) must in fact point to the existence of an 'architect.' if we deemed a universe of purely hydrogen or just electromagnetic radiation as in some way more attractive or more intrinsically 'divine,' then we could just as easily reach the architect conclusion upon observing that universe and it's exact parameters as we do in the case of our own universe. for if those parameters were changed, then that universe would not be the same! clearly our bias towards existence as it is relies on the fact that we live here. and the fact that we live in a universe that is complex enough to allow for our evolution is no great coincidence in itself.

    for an analogy as to what i mean, lets say you flip a coin 1000 times. any given sequence of heads and tails is just as unlikely as the next, in terms of sheer probability. yet if you get 1000 heads in a row or 1000 tails in a row, or a sructured sequence of alternations between heads and tails, that would undoubtedly seem much less likely to have happened by 'chance' than if you were to get a seemingly random and unstructured sequence of heads and tails. this clearly has more to do with how we conceptualize which results are signficant than it has to do with which results dictate design.

    so what is it about complex chemical structures that point to god? would a 'dead' universe full of planets and stars but no life likewise point to god? in my opinion, this would seem ultimately pretty pointless on god's part. i think that the meaning that we actually ascribe to these complex chemical structures is that they allow for us to exist. the meaning that we ascribe to god is that he has a vested interest in us.

    but since most of the known universe is seemingly dead, how reasonable is the conclusion is it actually that the universe was made with the intention in mind of bringing forth life? especially when you consider that this process took billions of years to manifest and that life will likely die out on this planet and every other planet that might contain life long before the universe itself will die.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)