Present a BETTER worldview

[Ashendant]

Some scientist think the universe maybe stuck in a loop of Big bangs and big crunchs

I remember reading that somewhere. In an old book that I read bits of years ago.

If I remember correctly, the idea is that it starts with a big bang, the universe expands and expands til it starts to slow down and come back into it self. Then the sheer forces pulling it altogether that compresses all that energy into a tiny ball which sparks off another big bang. A natural cycle.

I find the idea quite interesting.

My theory is that space is unlimited and there an infinite ammount of big bangs happening around the universe when parts of the various big bangs colide alot they form another big bangable object and explode after a while

An infinite loop existing eternally and unlimited theoryising is fun

[Watson]

^Read 'Timequake' by Kurt Vonnegut. That book s exactly what youre looking for when it comes to the 'what ifs' of time theory!

[theVOID]

- please present a BETTER explanation for the existence of our universe, a cosmological argument, which is more rational than Theism gives us. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Here's the PREVAILING cosmological explanation of the universe's early development:

Big Bang

Ummm, dude. The Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe, it's the birth of spacetime from the "Einsteinian singularity" - The big bang has nothing to say about the nature of reality prior to this event since relativistic equations are dependent on the notion of frames of reference in spacetime - Thus no spacetime no equations.

M-theory is frankly the best hypothesis for this phenomenon. Stephen Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" is a really good introduction to the subject, i'd highly recommend it.

- please present a BETTER explanation for the fine-tuning of - The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth

120? So needless to say you've already done the research required and are simply disappointed God's not one of them?

At any rate a secondary education level science textbook that covers the basics to organic reactions is all you need to understanding the fundamentals involved in biochemistry, if you're referring to Abiogenesis (quite possibly owing to your vague OP) I recommend you give this site a visit:-

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Umm, you really didn't answer the question, you answered a different question

He's talking about constants such as fine-structure or cosmological constants that permit the existence of a type of universe in which matter exists, has the laws that eventually lead to the matter forming stars that build carbon that permit organic chemicals etc. Even the mass of particles needs to be somewhat specific to allow for carbon like structures.

However there is no reason to assume that suitably-self aware structures made out of fundamentally different components cannot exist.

- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?

We can't. That still remains one of the unsolved theoretical problems in physics:

Cosmic inflation

- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system :

Nebular hypothesis

Yeah, again... i think you misunderstand what fine-tuning is, then again his whole "inflation rate of the big bang was fine tuned" is complete nonsense because the inconsistency of inflation is what made gravity non-uniform and thus allowed the formation of influential masses.

I guess you could call that fine-tuning if by "fine-tuned" you mean irregular In any case there are an extremely large number of possible inflationary discrepancies that would have produced the same effect, so applying fine-tuning here is misguided at the least.

[blood_pardon]

We have also failed to reproduce Nuclear fusion in the laboratory. So by your standards it's not true.

Yet every star in the sky proves that it happens.

Just because we have haven't been able to do it ourselves yet doesn't mean it's inapplicable

No its inapplicable because unlike nuclear fusion it has never been observed. There is no evidence whatsoever. Its wishful thinking and naturlists desperately cling to it because it is their only hope of explaining things without God.

"God did it" is not an explanation. It's a wild, baseless assertion for which there is no evidence.

I know there are contrary contentions to all the "God proofs" but if He actually does exist then the design, the cosmological, the moral, and the transcendental actually are valid arguments.

Did you ever see the film 'Law Abiding Citizen'? The whole picture is about this man who witnesses the murder of his entire family but because he can't get a conviction using our justice system the killer goes free. There is this reocurring line "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove." It reminds me alot of atheistic thinking and the God I believe in is going to point to these same arguments and no one will have an excuse. All speculation will one day come to a screeching halt.

[Tiberius]

I think a super-natural being is something beyond the realm of scientific observation. And therefore, finding evidence of God is not a possible thing in the first place. That's why we can only depend on our reasoning, logic, and intuitive thinking to know the truth. So, that's the reason why I believe in a God even though I don't have any evidence for His existence.

Where did I say "evidence" meant "scientific evidence"? Evidence is anything that can be used to show an assertion is true; whether that be physical observation, or rational argument. I have seen neither. If you claim that you have reasoning, logic, and intuitive thinking that proves God exists, I want to hear it.

I know there are contrary contentions to all the "God proofs" but if He actually does exist then the design, the cosmological, the moral, and the transcendental actually are valid arguments.

No they wouldn't. Arguments are only valid if the premises support the conclusion in a logical way. None of the arguments you cited for God existing are logically valid, as they all commit logical fallacies at some point. Just because the conclusion of the argument is true, doesn't mean the rest of the argument is valid.

[Rayaan]

BTW, even if the universe had a divine origin, what makes you think it was the particular god you happen to believe in? For all we know, it could have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or an Invisible Magic Wizard with the body of a horse and the head of a snake. Or perhaps it wasn't just one deity, but a number of deities, maybe the three beings I mentioned got together and each created one part of the universe. All of these explanations are about as "valid" as "YHWH or Allah did it". I cannot prove any of them wrong, but just because they cannot be disproved does not make them true.

The reason that I believe in God and disbelieve in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is pretty simple to explain. The reason is because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just a name which is commonly used by atheists to compare it with an all-powerful God. The monster can be named anything else, but the point is that using something imaginary like the "FSM" and replacing it with the word "God" does not mean that God is imaginary also. As a Muslim, I believe that there can be only one real God (which is Allah). I think of Him as the Ultimate Truth. So, just like there can be only one "Ultimate Truth" in the universe, I believe that there can be only one true God which is capable of producing everything in the universe. That's why I don't believe in things like flying spaghetti monsters and magical unicorns nor any other gods because there can be only one, true God (since there can be only one ultimate truth to explain the universe).

Until you actually present evidence "God did it" will remain a non-answer.

So, what do you think would serve you as a good enough evidence?
I doubt if God will ever show Himself somewhere in the stars above and speak to us. That'll happen next on the day of resurrection, I believe.

Yeah, again... i think you misunderstand what fine-tuning is, then again his whole "inflation rate of the big bang was fine tuned" is complete nonsense because the inconsistency of inflation is what made gravity non-uniform and thus allowed the formation of influential masses.I guess you could call that fine-tuning if by "fine-tuned" you mean irregular In any case there are an extremely large number of possible inflationary discrepancies that would have produced the same effect, so applying fine-tuning here is misguided at the least.

Just look at the Earth and see how finely tuned it is for life. To me it doesn't matter if the rest of the universe is finely turned or not. Furthemore, notice how the human body is so finely tuned for carrying out the basic functions of life.

If you claim that you have reasoning, logic, and intuitive thinking that proves God exists, I want to hear it.

Yes, I'm going to make a separate topic when I'm ready to discuss. I'm just thinking about how to present my ideas coherently.

[KichigaiNeko]

Just look at the Earth and see how finely tuned it is for life.

Is it?? What do you mean by 'life' ?

To me it doesn't matter if the rest of the universe is finely turned or not. Furthemore, notice how the human body is so finely tuned for carrying out the basic functions of life.

Just what basic functions are they?? Eating Shitting and Procreating?? Hell man ...ANY ANIMAL can do that?? The Human body isn't THAT special.

I would argue that the planet is not made for us or 'life' as you so romantically put it.

I would say that 'Life' (as you would have it) just got damn lucky enough to adapt to this planet.



Has anyone seen / heard of the 'Big Bang' being a collision of Black holes??? (caught a gllimpse from a science programme and didn't hear the rest of it)

[blood_pardon]

No they wouldn't. Arguments are only valid if the premises support the conclusion in a logical way. None of the arguments you cited for God existing are logically valid, as they all commit logical fallacies at some point. Just because the conclusion of the argument is true, doesn't mean the rest of the argument is valid.

I agree but who decides whether or not something is illogical or not? Its all a matter of personal opinion and Im assuming since you didnt present any of the fallacies you have not interest in changing mine. You dont have the time to write a 100,000 page essay right?

Why do you think Christians come into forums like this and try to convince you your wrong?

What is the point of having an atheist forum if its not to talk about religion? As far as I know the only thing atheists have in common are their lack of belief in gods.

[Tiberius]

I agree but who decides whether or not something is illogical or not? Its all a matter of personal opinion.

No it isn't. Logic is well defined. Particular statements are either logical (i.e. they follow logically) or they are not. There isn't any room for interpretation or opinion. It may well be true that some people choose to act irrationally and insist that they are correct despite the flaws in their reasoning. When people have deeply held beliefs, revealing those beliefs as illogical isn't usually taken well.

Im assuming since you didnt present any of the fallacies you have not interest in changing mine. You dont have the time to write a 100,000 page essay right?

Your assumption, like the rest of your argument, is baseless. I have a great interest in changing your mind. I don't think it can be done by me in this thread; I have neither the time nor the expertise to answer you in any manner that could convince you.

If you want an example of a fallacy you make, it would be this one: "to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done"

Ignoring the fact that you do not explain the origin of these numbers, or even how you know that to create a life-permitting universe, you need that many attempts (give that we don't even know if there was an initial "attempt"). Ignoring all that, you are arguing from large numbers, and hoping that we ignore the small numbers. What are the small numbers? Well, you give the start of the range as 1. 1 attempt. What you want us to think is that "gosh, we really might need 10^500 attempts at a universe being created that can sustain life?!?", and from there we think, that is highly improbable; it can't have happened. What you don't want us to think is "wait a minute, he's admitted to the universe maybe only needing 1 attempt to sustain life...that works out fine".

Your use of large numbers is a classic statistical trick that I see a lot. You want us to think that 10^500 is so improbable, it can't happen, but you do not give us any context into which we can put that amount. Your forget the key thing here; even if you have a very low probability of something happening, as long as the probability isn't 0, it can happen on the first go.

Why do you think Christians come into forums like this and try to convince you your wrong?

I don't doubt that you want to convince us, but if you use fallacious arguments, you aren't going to win any points here. By all means, try to convince us, but if people don't want to, or outright refuse to debate you, it doesn't mean that you automatically win. An opponent's refusal or inability to debate proves nothing about your argument.

[Ashendant]

The human body is so flawed it's not even funny, if god really did humans he pretty much failed at correcting very basic flaws