|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why is it, as you say, impossible for them not to exist? I don't know why, but haven't you noticed that there's no universe we're aware of where there isn't gravity, electromagnetism, matter, energy, etc?
Well, according to Einstein, he was convinved that God does not play dice. As it turned out, he was wrong. Not surprising, really - it wasn't exactly his field of expertise. Even Einstein was not infallible.
As for my assumptions, would you not agree that after examining the complexity of the variables that govern our solar system fit within a very narrow range that would allow for life to flourish on this planet? We don't know that the "variables" you refer to are actually all that variable. We absolutely don't know what forms of life are possible or impossible under alternate values of those variables, if alternate values can even exist. What you're asking is akin to asking why the tea inside the teacup is so coincidentally shaped exactly like the inside of a teacup. Look, if the initial conditions of the universe are so apparently "fine-tuned" for life as we know it, why is life as we know it such a rare occurance in the universe? It does, after all, exist on one unremarkable planet orbiting an unremarkable star in a completely unremarkable spiral galaxy. I mean it seems pretty obvious to me that the universe is a place astronomically hostile to life as we know it, not a place fine-tuned to be its cradle. Here's a paper on the subject that I've always enjoyed:
System Unavailable
Mandate my superiority to others? How am I acting superior? You don't think you're acting superior when you refer to atheists as "fools"? You don't find that language condescending? I don't know about you but my mother taught me a little better than that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1271 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Jar,
It is such a great concept that it will take a moment for me to put into better words... For example: Why is an atom shaped as it is shaped? Generally, objects with more weight have a greater mass. Why is this the way it is? DO NOT overlook this premise. The very nature of every very thing in the universe, including the universe itself and it's nature must have a reason for being. How is "the inherent nature" described without a creator? Please do not ridicule me for my words for they require must stewing and thought; many months if not years to fully comprehend. I am asking a lot of EvC forum. Edited by -messenjah of one, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please do not ridicule me for my words for they require must stewing and thought; many months if not years to fully comprehend. Well, no they don't. Sorry. The answer is exactly the same as the reason I had seventy-five cents in coins in my pocket. But here is an important question. It may take months if not years to fully comprehend. I just looked and miraculously I now have one dollar and sixty cents change in my pocket. DO NOT overlook this premise. The "nature" as you so loosely describe it is as WE describe it to be. Even then, you really need to add even more definition for your statements to be true. For example:
Generally, objects with more weight have a greater mass. Why is this the way it is? Think about that statement. Which weighs more, a cubic foot of pure iron on the earth or the moon? Which has more mass, the cubic foot or iron on the earth, or the one on the moon? We learn more and more everyday about the whys. We are learning why atoms have the shape they do, and the rules seem pretty straight forward. We are now beginning to build with just that knowledge, to create objects, machines, that are based only on the knowledge of why things are shaped as they are. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I don't know why, but haven't you noticed that there's no universe we're aware of where there isn't gravity, electromagnetism, matter, energy, etc? Well, call me crazy but there is only one universe in known reality, hence, the prefix 'uni,' as in 'one.' But now that you mention it, along with String theory comes the question of multiverses which are now being toyed with by various mathematicians and whatnot.
quote: As it turned out, he was wrong. Not surprising, really - it wasn't exactly his field of expertise. Even Einstein was not infallible. Of course he isn't infallible, but what does it have to do with you claiming that God play's dice? I was merely showing that it was Einstein who made that pronouncement and that he said that he was convinced that God does NOT play dice.
We don't know that the "variables" you refer to are actually all that variable. We absolutely don't know what forms of life are possible or impossible under alternate values of those variables, if alternate values can even exist. Hence why they are called laws. They have never been known to be anything other than physical constants. The better question is why there should be physical laws at all.
What you're asking is akin to asking why the tea inside the teacup is so coincidentally shaped exactly like the inside of a teacup. Look, if the initial conditions of the universe are so apparently "fine-tuned" for life as we know it, why is life as we know it such a rare occurance in the universe? It does, after all, exist on one unremarkable planet orbiting an unremarkable star in a completely unremarkable spiral galaxy. I mean it seems pretty obvious to me that the universe is a place astronomically hostile to life as we know it, not a place fine-tuned to be its cradle. Though I liked your analogy it ultimately fails on this occasion because the tea is simply conforming to rules of the cup. The tea is behaving the way we'd expect it to inside the cup. So, it really isn't remarkable at all, nor would that be analagous to the debate we are having currently. As for the earth being unremarkable in a hostile universe, that is precisely part of the argument of the anthropic principle. If there was a change in earth's placement within the universe, by maybe 1 part in 1015 difference would be disasterous. Life couldn't be possible. A number of new arguments against the anthropic principle is, as I stated above, the multiverse theory, in that there are infinite or near infinite universes where through probabalistic determination, one of them is bound to be as finely tuned as it is. At this point, its an indefensible argument because there is literally no raw data on it outside of, perhaps, an mathematical abstract. And to put in to perspective, its like someone using the "Godditit" argument. Something of that brevity would just emasculate science. While it may be fun to toy around with the notions, its just not something anyone has to go by.
Here's a paper on the subject that I've always enjoyed:
System Unavailable
What exactly did you want me to glean from the article?
You don't think you're acting superior when you refer to atheists as "fools"? You don't find that language condescending? Not compared to some of your language. Again, it bespeaks of an arrogance, not about their intellect. If you were offended by my usage of King David's words, I apologize.
I don't know about you but my mother taught me a little better than that. She sounds like a wonderful lady. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1271 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Jar,
If I knew you in real life I would cry for your well-being.
quote: This is simply dishonest and unsupported. You need to take some time to reflect upon my words. I mean no disrespect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1271 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: This is fairly accurate. This is important. My reputation among my friends here may diminish but this is a trivial asset. I will not relent in regards to this concept and discussion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
The better question is why there should be physical laws at all.
If there weren't any laws, we would have to invent some. Come to think of it, that's exactly what happened, as already mentioned by Nutcase in Message 2. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: If there was a change in earth's placement within the universe, by maybe 1 part in 1015 difference would be disasterous. Life couldn't be possible. That doesn't sound right. The earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun.There are 1609.344 meters per mile, and 1000 millimetres per meter (93000000/(1015)) * 1 609.344 * 1000 = 0.057 millimeters Are you saying that if the earth was one twentieth of a millimeter closer or further away from the sun, life would be impossible? Or do you mean that if the earth was moved 10-15 of the total size of the universe, life would be impossible? I agree in the latter case, because Earth would then be way out of the solar system. 10-15 of the total size of the universe is a big, big number. Mick Edited by M, : No reason given. Edited by M, : dodgy maths
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
-messanjah of one
Read these questions carefully before replying, they require much thought and (to add the controversy) have no answer from a Godless mindset. There is no mindset wherein an answer is forthcoming though. If you take the position that God made them you still have yet to explain your question
How does a law come about? God making them explains nothing since you need to demonstrate that God did indeed do so and therein prove that God exists to do so. Also the means by which God makes the laws the way they are are a seperate issue from whether God did in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1271 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I appreciate your argument sidelined. My next step is to form a teleogical proof for God. But this is not to not continue to underline the concept expressed here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
My next step is to form a teleogical proof for God.
It's a waste of effort. Those proofs never work anyway. The whole point of such a proof is to bamboozle people (perhaps including yourself) by hiding the circularity where it is hard to find. But such proofs are always circular if you look hard enough. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
NJ writes: If there was a change in earth's placement within the universe, by maybe 1 part in 1015 difference would be disasterous. Life couldn't be possible. to which you reasonably replied:
quote: Lots of the Biblical Creationists sites love to just make stuff up and it is possible that NJ actually took his figures from such a site. Truth is the earth is closest to the sun in January and farthest from the sun in July. At our closest we are about 91 million miles away from the sun and at our farthest about 94 million miles so we already see a difference of over 3%. And even that says absolutely nothing about the limits where life would be possible. As usual, all that is is another argument from incredulity combined with just plain ignorance of the facts. So far we know of NO laws governing life. We know of one example that does work, but don't really have a clue as to what other possibilities there might be. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1271 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
NWR,
I must explore this avenue.
quote: I know for sure that I cannot deal in absolutes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Generally, objects with more weight have a greater mass. Why is this the way it is?
Not generally, absolutley now watch someone pull out some weird sub-atomic stuff that contradicts this. F=ma, mass and weight are directly proportional, if the object's mass increases so does it's weight. it's simple physics. Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1271 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
I understand this elementary point (took physics) but I am questioning the very essence of why things are the way they are.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024