Proposition 1 - Fine tuning
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
you would need to first define your god
How does a definition help? You're basically saying we can't exclude possibilities based on what we know. Are there definitions of life you think aren't possible in the universe or are you open to the astronomical possibilities?
"we can't exclude possibilities based on what we know."
We can if what we know contradicts something being possible, but that's irrelevant as we don't need to exclude the possibility for something existing in order to have compelling reasons not to believe it exists. Do you believe in invisible unicorns? You can't prove it is impossible for then to exist after all?
The rejection of a claim is not making a contrary claim, just as not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
because any form of life would at the very least be made up of the contents of the universe, therefore so would your god.
that would then mean it is impossible for it to be a creator but rather a product there of.
The moment a scientist in a lab creates life from scratch, would that not be it's creator?
If life can adapt to the universe, as many here seem to suggest, is there a limit to how much it can adapt? We can manipulate quite a lot with technology.
Why wouldn't a powerful being exist, that make a garden out of a planet, seeded with life?
can you provide an example of a scientist that has created something from scratch? and actually from scratch, nothing.
scientifically speaking I would personally doubt that anything could adapt to survive a black hole.
I don't like to pin my flag to absolutes but if I'm being asked on a personal level, then this is my thoughts.
we really cannot manipulate much, as a species we have done well, but lets be honest our achievements are very insignificant on the grand scale of the universe.
we will very likely never leave our solar system, let alone visit our nearest neighbouring galaxies.
then we factor that there is at a rough minimum a billion trillion stars observable.
if the universe is eternal as is most likely, then what we have done is essentially nothing worth talking about.
and I would ask why would a powerful being need to exist? nothing found in the universe or on this planet requires a god.
I'm not sure if our achievements are insignificant. We're limited mostly by our size and lifetime. So we can definitely leave our solar system, hasn't our technology already done so? We can destroy the moon to bits if we desire. That's not insignificant.
I'm curious tho. Do you not think scientists will eventually create life from scratch?
we are completely insignificant, we've essentially done next to nothing.
I said we will never leave our solar system, not our probes.
yes voyager 1 is in interstellar heading towards Gliese 445
and our nearest system is Andromeda which is 2.5m light years away.
I will leave that to you to work out how long it will take to get to the nearest speck in the universe.
I would like to see how you propose we destroy the moon, every nuclear bomb (ICBM's) on earth couldn't reach it.
even if you transported all of them to the moon, it is still far too big.
so unless you are developing your own death star I'm not sure.
I think scientist could eventually make anything using any certain elements.
but not from nothing.
"I said we will never leave our solar system, not our probes."
I understand that, but clearly it's a limitation due to will power not technology. If we wanted to get people past the solar system, if we wanted to blow up the moon, we could.
Were those probes sterilized? Odds are we sent a bacterial spore with it.
Go to the NASA website John or just google your question.
Yes all the deep space stuff is constructed in a sterile environment and then treated so as to not contaminate any results, and worse export any microbes.
Similarly the moon dust was irradiated before being allowed to be viewed outside the sealed containers.
ok, no it is not will power, it is technology.
we cannot blow up the moon, we have nothing powerful enough to do it, not even every nuclear weapon.
I know when you look up at the beautiful night sky that the moon looks relatively small, but its not.
we do not have the technology to get humans out of the solar system,
- no ship large enough to carry the required fuel
- no ship large enough to carry the required needs of the crew
- no systems to allow cryostasis to aid the vast journey
- the accuracy involved and orbits of other planets and so on.
eg. if we wanted to go to pluto, it has a very large elliptical orbit, so its closest point to earth is 4.4b Km from earth and that was in 1989! at its furthest point from earth it is over 7b Km from earth.
- even ion drives will struggle, yes they can reach 200,000mph but that will be reduced by the suns gravity as was voyagers velocity.
- signals, it would take over 4 hours to receive any signal from a ship near to pluto
- time - it has taken voyager 12 years to reach pluto, yes you can use far larger rockets or propulsion systems but you trade off with weight payload.
- interstellar impact - the amount of debris would cause untold problems
the lists go on and on and on.
"If life can adapt to the universe, as many here seem to suggest, "
Could you cite one post suggesting this please? All I have seen is people pointing out that all the evidence we have shows life adapted to the very specific environment here on earth, that is not remotely the same claim.
"Why wouldn't a powerful being exist, that make a garden out of a planet, seeded with life?"
What evidence can you demonstrate for such a being?
Lucy "rather a product there of"
Yep, imagination :D
Funny that when I say life is a product of the universe, my comment is spectacular in it's ineptitude. But when it comes to god, then he must be a product.
another passing thought regarding the universe being 'fine tuned' for life,
the sun is dying and will collapse on itself in due time, just like all stars once it has used its fuel supply.
this alone shows that we have adapted to our local conditions.
it would make no sense for the universe to be fine tuned for life, only for our sun to eventually engulf mercury, venus and earth.
food for thought I guess.
Anyone able to demonstrate any evidence for anything supernatural yet? Tempus Fugit...
We now the physical natural universe exists, and theists are always insisting there is more, so why do they all always become so uncharacteristically reticent when they're asked if they can demonstrate any evidence to support their claim?
It's unfortunately the nature of theistic claims, everything proposed cannot be backed up, such as...
- There is a god
- We have souls
- There is a heaven
- There is a hell
- There are angels
- There are an evil equivalent
- Miracles can happen that require the suspension of all laws of nature
And so on...
I would ask, what is more likely, all these are possible? Or they are more likely not true.
I'm sorry but I side with occams razor here.