tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post1578523482012777137..comments2023-11-30T00:26:51.309-08:00Comments on Superstition Free: Jesus Is Sauron!Robert Madewellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13237253238274655114noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-60571830092210051472009-10-22T15:29:35.738-07:002009-10-22T15:29:35.738-07:00I'm not an authority on virtual particles, I&#...I'm not an authority on virtual particles, I've never studied them. However, being a scientist, I can understand your confusion (since "big science" is "big science"). I can also make some very basic statements about them.<br /><br />Since observation is at the core of any hypothesis, if someone has introduced the model of virtual particles as a solution to an observed, fundamental atomic regularity, then this model may or may not be viable.<br /><br />If it is observed repeatedly and under most circumstances, then it is more viable. If it cannot be observed in some situations, this may or may not falsify the hypothesis (or theory).<br /><br />I have a solid education in atomic chemistry and physics, but I have never studied virtual particles. In fact, I have not studied theoretical physics at any great length. I am in no way an authority on theoretical physics beyond the very basics of the scientific method they must ascribe to.fuuuuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405240043522723435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-10549808171149710362009-10-22T14:22:03.886-07:002009-10-22T14:22:03.886-07:00Ethin, you are being intellectually dishonest if y...Ethin, you are being intellectually dishonest if you don't admit to the flaws in the definition of "virtual particles."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-69493745553004174722009-10-12T06:01:27.868-07:002009-10-12T06:01:27.868-07:00I think Leo wants you to talk about information th...I think Leo wants you to talk about information theory, because apparently he's an expert and I'm supposedly in over my head, even though he seems to not know anything about physics or biology.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-19472692380866360822009-10-11T19:12:45.282-07:002009-10-11T19:12:45.282-07:00Why does it matter what I think about it? If they ...Why does it matter what I think about it? If they observed something, it's real. I'd hope you'd agree with that simple principle.fuuuuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405240043522723435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-36340894907906608552009-10-10T22:53:36.389-07:002009-10-10T22:53:36.389-07:00ethinethin, still waiting for your comments on thi...ethinethin, still waiting for your comments on thisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-33302679619761421812009-09-30T10:28:32.076-07:002009-09-30T10:28:32.076-07:00Leo,
"Where is ethinethin. He'll understa...Leo,<br />"Where is ethinethin. He'll understand the question. GCT is in over his head."<br /><br />No Leo, it's that you don't understand what it is you are asking. Shannon information or Kolmogorov, and how does it fit into this? Information has nothing to do with this.<br /><br />"Virtual Particles have only been "predicted" to exist. They only exist because our other experiments say, "Something must exist here." There is much skepticism about their existence. Try googling 'virtual particles do not exist'"<br /><br />I suggest you google it yourself and see how many website come up that say that they do exist. Did you even try it before saying something breath-takingly stupid?<br /><br />Finally, this is all side-show crap. The reality is that in the quantum realm, causality does not quite work, meaning that all your arguments that rely on causality are useless (not that they were ever compelling since they all rely on logical fallacy anyway).GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-84970259514040187042009-09-30T09:45:48.167-07:002009-09-30T09:45:48.167-07:00GCT- Virtual Particles have only been "predic...GCT- Virtual Particles have only been "predicted" to exist. They only exist because our other experiments say, "Something must exist here." There is much skepticism about their existence. Try googling 'virtual particles do not exist'Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-41089193985538898302009-09-30T09:27:31.849-07:002009-09-30T09:27:31.849-07:00Where is ethinethin. He'll understand the que...Where is ethinethin. He'll understand the question. GCT is in over his head.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-315665683354856972009-09-30T06:08:49.611-07:002009-09-30T06:08:49.611-07:00Leo,
What do you mean by "information?" ...Leo,<br />What do you mean by "information?" These particle interact with the physical world, they are real entities. Keep your head in the sand, reality will continue to be the way it is regardless of your beliefs.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-33514535626357986212009-09-30T06:07:49.937-07:002009-09-30T06:07:49.937-07:00Grace,
"GCT, I do think there is something of...Grace,<br />"GCT, I do think there is something of truth, and beauty in other faiths. But, obviously, all cannot be equally true, and valid, if they assert differing things concerning God's nature, and purpose."<br /><br />And, how do you know which one to choose, if any?<br /><br />"It does seem to me that among most people there is an inituitive sense that there is something or someone greater than themselves, that we are not alone in the universe."<br /><br />It also seems intuitive that the sun goes around the Earth. Intuition is not a reliable method of claiming truth or knowledge about the world.<br /><br />"I don't feel that this can be easily explained by wish-fullfillment, or simply in evolutionary terms."<br /><br />Why not? Are you aware of the current state of biological and cultural evolutionary studies - at least enough to make an informed dissent?<br /><br />"But, what do you think of the hypothesis of a God gene?"<br /><br />I think it's interesting. I don't know if there is an actual god gene per se, but there's most likely some evolutionary component to it at least in the cultural sense and in other senses. Humans seem to be wired to look for patterns, even when they don't exist. This is not unique to us, however. A study was done where pigeons were trained to do tasks to get food. When the machine was changed to give food at random times, the pigeons went through more and more elaborate dances and movements in order to find the pattern that would lead to their food. Once one "worked" (meaning it aligned with the random time that food would be alloted) the pigeon would repeat those movements to try and get a food pellet again. When that didn't work, more and more complexity would be added to the dance. The pigeons were, in effect, looking for patterns that led to food appearance and trying to re-create those patterns, even when no pattern existed.<br /><br />So, where am I going with this? Pattern recognition and an inability to explain things along with a need to find some common story with which to identify in and out groups and our human tendency to personify likely led to the idea of other "persons" that caused things to happen in the world, which eventually would become religion.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-56582472891537862132009-09-29T16:08:19.979-07:002009-09-29T16:08:19.979-07:00GCT, I do think there is something of truth, and b...GCT, I do think there is something of truth, and beauty in other faiths. But, obviously, all cannot be equally true, and valid, if they assert differing things concerning God's nature, and purpose. <br /><br />It does seem to me that among most people there is an inituitive sense that there is something or someone greater than themselves, that we are not alone in the universe.<br /><br />I don't feel that this can be easily explained by wish-fullfillment, or simply in evolutionary terms. But, what do you think of the hypothesis of a God gene?<br /><br />Hey, GCT, and Ethinethin, it would be an awesome discussion, and challenging to do a Bible study together, wouldn't it?<br /><br />Give you both the last word.<br /><br />Blessings!Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-50708629233347148462009-09-29T14:53:57.101-07:002009-09-29T14:53:57.101-07:00So if they exist, what information is carried by t...So if they exist, what information is carried by these "virtual" particles? And what causes their attraction from one point to another? The repulsion from one point does not explain the attraction to the other.<br /><br />I just finished reading "The Einstein Hoax." Some very good questions. The "medicine ball" analogy addresses this very question.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-30001693576136172442009-09-29T12:51:07.946-07:002009-09-29T12:51:07.946-07:00No Leo, what we have is empirical evidence that so...No Leo, what we have is empirical evidence that something is there and interacting with the physical world. I'm (really not) sorry that this disrupts your apologetic, but you should stop trying to force reality to fit to your beliefs.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-42110939092453239042009-09-29T11:38:18.286-07:002009-09-29T11:38:18.286-07:00It just appears this is one of those, "We hav...It just appears this is one of those, "We have a gap, so we'll fill it with this. We know it exists because something has to exist there."Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-52027557337725498702009-09-29T08:41:59.311-07:002009-09-29T08:41:59.311-07:00Leo,
Don't let the name of them fool you. The...Leo,<br />Don't let the name of them fool you. They exist. They interact with the physical world. In fact, certain phenomena must take these particles into account in order to give us accurate depictions of the world.<br /><br />The bottom line is that at the quantum level, the idea of causality breaks down.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-11898613546508016552009-09-29T07:53:11.480-07:002009-09-29T07:53:11.480-07:00So these particles that "blink into existence...So these particles that "blink into existence" don't ever really exist? Or am I reading this wrong? If this is true, then it doesn't get past the question you used this to answer previously.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-48023733515662004522009-09-28T13:12:49.469-07:002009-09-28T13:12:49.469-07:00Leo,
I'm actually impressed that you came up w...Leo,<br />I'm actually impressed that you came up with a good question, so I spent some time scouting around some sites to help you. Please don't disappoint me by not looking at this:<br /><br /><a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html" rel="nofollow">Virtual Particles</a>GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-61522678487317727542009-09-28T12:11:50.885-07:002009-09-28T12:11:50.885-07:00Just had a moment, and upon first reading, take is...Just had a moment, and upon first reading, take issue with this statement from GCT:<br /><br />"we see particles blink into and out of existence without cause."<br /><br />How does this jive with the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed?Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-84272073708025074432009-09-28T07:30:26.897-07:002009-09-28T07:30:26.897-07:00"Most cosmologists would agree concerning the..."Most cosmologists would agree concerning the "big bang," theory of the universe's origin. If this is true, then it must be that the known universe had a beginning at a specific point in time. Would you agree?"<br /><br />No, as it needs some re-phrasing. The universe as we know it and time as it is a property of our universe would have started at some distinct point, but this is not the same as what you are claiming.<br /><br />"If everything that begins to exist must have a cause, and the universe began to exist, then it doesn't seem unreasonable for me to think that what caused the universe might point toward God."<br /><br />On a macro-level, you can probably hold to causality, but not so on the quantum level where we see particles blink into and out of existence without cause.<br /><br />Secondly, since time is a property of this universe, it's very difficult to talk about time "before the big bang" if it even makes sense. In order to have causality, however, one must have a time in which to do it, since the two are linked. How can something "cause" something else if there is no time involved (pre-time in the singularity)?<br /><br />Lastly, it is unreasonable to say that goddidit sans any evidence of god's involvement - it's a god of the gaps argument.<br /><br />"How did matter, and energy come to be? Does it seem reasonable to think that nature created itself?""<br /><br />It's more reasonable to note that it simply was and leave it at that until we have evidence that contradicts that. No one is saying that nothing existed and then suddenly became the universe. No one except creationists that is.<br /><br />"I've studied that there are six numbers which seem to underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe, and that each is an exact value required for life to exist. If any one of the six, such as the gravitational constant, or the strong nuclear force were different to even the smallest degree, there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life, Ethinethin. I quoting from astronomer Martin Ree's, "Just Six Numbers.""<br /><br />Ethin's already pointed out that it only works for "life as we know it." But, also we should consider that there are still infinite possibilites involving an infinite set of values that could be used and still create a universe that works, as Victor Stenger has worked out.<br /><br />"Even the simplest living cell is quite complex."<br /><br />You do realize that only creationists claim that the first cell had to come about all at once, right? No scientists are saying that cells simply formed without pre-cursors.<br /><br />Finally, in regards to probability, I'll give you another example than Ethin's (although that was a great example). Is it more or less probable to get a royal flush in poker than to get 2H, 3C, 4D, 5S, 7H? How about any other hand?<br /><br />Fact is, it's just as probable to get any hand as any other hand (if one specifies the suit - since there are 4 ways to get a royal flush, it's actually more likely to be dealt a royal flush than the specified hand above). Every hand is of equal probability and they are all pretty unlikely, yet every time you deal the cards, you get something.<br /><br />Lastly, I would suggest that you look into genetic algorithms, which use the ideas of RM + NS to solve problems that are well beyond our reach and show that complexity can and does arise through these processes.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-40650429679374385702009-09-28T06:47:56.383-07:002009-09-28T06:47:56.383-07:00Grace,
I'm glad that your son got to his desti...Grace,<br />I'm glad that your son got to his destination safely. I'm sure it's a load off your shoulders.<br /><br />Also, I'm going to try and touch on some things that Ethin might have already talked about, so apologies (to both of you) if I do that.<br /><br />"I really don't have extremely strong views one way or the other relating to the inerrancy of the Scripture because my faith isn't actually centered there. I think this whole inerrancy emphasis is a relatively recent view in the overall history of the entire church, btw."<br /><br />It's actually not new. One of the examples of inerrancy differing by interpretation was the case of 1 day equalling 1000 years in the Genesis account. This was something that was formulated pretty early in the church history, and shows a clear case of reasoning by inerrancy.<br /><br />Regardless, if the Bible is not accurate, then how do we know about god at all? The only source that we have is the Bible.<br /><br />"Or, I might ask if God is the author of all life, does He have the right also to take that life? And, could this ever be a mercy?"<br /><br />god does not have the right to capriciously take life. Might does not make right. god, by creating us, has taken on a moral responsibility towards us. Now, it could be a mercy, like if the person is suffering from some horrible disease...but this runs into another issue, like why was the person suffering from that disease in the first place, which is a situation that god would be responsible for. god would simply be making a belated attempt, in that case, to correct how own wrongs.<br /><br />"I'm thinking of things like the destruction of Pharoah's armies at the Reed Sea as they pursued the Hebrew people, or something like the destruction of the Cannanites.<br /><br />I have studied that these people had as their aim the annihilation of the ancient Hebrews, and were extremely wicked in their practices, even sacrificing their own children to Molech by fire."<br /><br />Remember that Pharoah tried to relent and god hardened his heart. Also remember that god would be a hypocrite to denounce the Canaanites for child sacrifice when he sacrificed his own son, ordered the sacrifice of Isaac, and also caused a sacrifice when a man made the deal to sacrifice what he sees and ended up seeing his daughter.<br /><br />None of these things excuse genocide, especially not for a god that has the intellect and power to use a different methodology.<br /><br />"I think I can trust Him even with some of these things that I can't completely know, or understand for now."<br /><br />As I said, this is painting a bulls-eye around the arrow that's already been shot. You are working from you biases and assuming your conclusions. You assume that god is good, so you think you can trust him. Anything that god does that is evil, you toss it out as not conforming to what you "know" about god even though you don't actually know that - you simply assumed it. It's special pleading.<br /><br />If you don't have enough information to make a value judgement to decide that god is evil, then you similarly can't make the value judgement that god is good. If you do have enough information to claim god is good, then you can condemn him for the genocides and rapes and murders and slavery, etc. What you can't do is have it both ways, which is what you are trying to do.<br /><br />"And, I truly don't know of any intelligent, thinking person who believes that elves, or the tooth fairy is real. :)"<br /><br />This is an argument from authority. Yes, there are intelligent people who believe in Yahweh, but there are also intelligent people who believe in Allah or Siva. Should I hold that those other gods also have some support for them simply because of that? I'm sure that you don't, so why would you think that we should?GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-17070659864687109832009-09-27T16:21:34.113-07:002009-09-27T16:21:34.113-07:00Doh, yes. I'm a cell biologist, but I call par...Doh, yes. I'm a cell biologist, but I call paramecia animals. They're protists, whoops. There are a few unicellular organisms in the animal kingdom, though.fuuuuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405240043522723435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-79384251206092213732009-09-27T16:18:27.703-07:002009-09-27T16:18:27.703-07:00Even the simplest living cell is quite complex
Do...<i>Even the simplest living cell is quite complex</i><br /><br />Don't I know it! I'm a cell biologist :)<br /><br />I really dig unicellular animals -- that is, single cell organisms that are big and complex enough (and specifically, consume nutrients and excrete waste via a primitive digestion sytem) to be classified in kingdom animalia.<br /><br />At the average length of 2e-4 meters, a paramecium is 50 times larger than an average human skin cell (about 4e-6), though both are just one cell. Though smaller, skin cells could be considered more complex than paramecia because of their emergent property of forming tissue and interact with large amounts of other like-cells.<br /><br />Paramecia are complex in other ways, with cilia used for motion and drawing in nutrients.<br /><br />As far as intelligence guided evolution, I respect your ability to believe that, but it's a great insult to the evolution I have studied. Evolution by natural selection is deceptively simple, yet powerful. As humans, we recognize patterns and sometimes allege design, and so by default we seem to think that something works so well, it had to be designed.<br /><br />When you actually study organisms, though, and realize how they have changed according to their environment, and see damaging adaptations that have flourished due to other factors, and see the terrible imperfection, the idea of guided evolution doesn't last very long.<br /><br />Why would someone design human eyes with a <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/69390/blind-spot" rel="nofollow">blind spot?</a><br /><br />Why would someone design <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics" rel="nofollow">sickle-cell blood cells to combat malaria</a>, when it otherwise has such terrible affects on their health?<br /><br />It's understandable that these adaptations occurred or flourished due to specific ecological reasons, but why would someone guide them to happen?<br /><br />One last thing.<br /><br /><i>I'll be honest, though, it would take alot for me to wrap my head around the idea that randomness, and chance could account for the complexity of life that seemed to be there from the very beginning.</i><br /><br />It isn't complete randomness, though. Mutations and adaptations may arise via cell replication errors or other things, but if they're beneficial, they'll be passed on. Let me explain that another way:<br /><br />If I gave you ten six-sided dice and said "roll those all at once until you roll all 1's", it would take you a long time to get all 1's. However, introduce a selective factor, say, "You can keep any 1's you roll on the table each time and reroll the rest", it wouldn't be nearly as improbable for you to have ten 1's on the table (although theoretically, you could roll all non-1's infinitely, even with this selective factor, it's not very likely).<br /><br />Of course, god does not play dice with the universe, right? ;)fuuuuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405240043522723435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-54477203727857912712009-09-27T15:45:32.910-07:002009-09-27T15:45:32.910-07:00Ethinethin,
Read your whole post. Thank you for t...Ethinethin,<br /><br />Read your whole post. Thank you for the time you took in writing it, and for sharing all your thoughts with me. Definitely will think about everything you've written.<br /><br />I'll be honest, though, it would take alot for me to wrap my head around the idea that randomness, and chance could account for the complexity of life that seemed to be there from the very beginning.<br /><br /> Even the simplest living cell is quite complex.. I lean more toward theistic evolution, but believe that an intelligence initiated, and guided this whole process.<br /><br />It looks as if you've given all of this a great deal of thought, too. Suppose we can only agree to disagree for now, anyway.<br /><br /> I don't actually have any children who are convinced atheists,Ethinethin, although not all of my kids are Christian believers, either. <br /><br />I don't really worry about Hell, but I do have a concern for my kids partly because I know the tremendous difference, sense of meaning, and purpose that knowing God can bring into a person's life.<br /><br />Once, Ethinethin, I was involved in a serious riding accident, and actually faced possible death. Lacerated my liver, and was bleeding internally, going into shock.<br /><br /> I remember so strongly sensing the presence of God, and realizing His love, and faithfulness, even as I just lost consciousness.<br /><br /> I'm not concerned about Hell, but I would not want to face death apart from the Lord either. The sure, and certain hope of the resurrection is pretty powerful stuff.<br /><br />All that being said, I love my kids to pieces, and think that they need to find their own way, and path to faith. We have good relationships, and can enjoy each other despite our differences. <br /><br />Hope it's the same for you with your family, Ethinethin.<br /><br /> I've certainly enjoyed talking with you, and with everyone here.<br /><br />Blessings!Gracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17018475588969974790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-88662036016479739212009-09-27T09:41:44.700-07:002009-09-27T09:41:44.700-07:00Let's say when my parents decided to conceive ...Let's say when my parents decided to conceive me, it took them twenty tries over the course of two months. A low or high estimate, I don't know and I'm not going to ask them. Let's say that each time, my father released an average of 170 million sperm per attempt (this is based on the average of 85 million sperm per testical per day). Over the course of the two months, my mother also released 3 eggs.<br /><br />Now, we know genetically that every combination of different sperm and egg is a different person, with different genotypes. With these numbers, there is 10,200,000,000 different combinations of people (3.4 billion sperm x 3 eggs), giving me a roughly 1 in 10 billion chance of being born. Now apply that number to my mother and my father, giving their parents the same averages, and we have a one in (10,200,000,000 to the power of 3) chance of me being born, which is a one in 1.06e30 chance that I exist, because only my parents could create me and only their parents can create them. Now take this back fifty generations or further, using the same logic. Add in societal and ecological factors, which can't be calculated as easy.<br /><br />One conclusion I can make right off the bat: how fucking improbable that I exist exactly the way I do! But guess what? I do exist, exactly the way I do. I'm a lucky son of a bitch, but we all are. It just happened, and there doesn't have to be a god directing it.<br /><br /><br /><i>Apart from a conditioning toward philosophical materialism, naturalism, is it really that far fetched, and irrational to wonder if an intelligent, creative force is behind it all, Ethinethin? Scripture states that the very heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies show His handiwork.</i><br /><br />Yes, it is far fetched and not very convincing. I haven't been "conditioned" toward philosophical materialism and naturalism. It just makes no presuppositions about things we can't know. You're basically concluding that there's no direct way we can know god exists (no signature on an iceberg, no autograph on a bible). The evidence you give is "we don't know, so maybe it's god", which is a logical fallacy.<br /><br />My response is not "we don't know, but it's probably not god". My response is "we don't know". And guess what? Two thousand years ago, we didn't know the earth was round. I wonder what we'll know in another two thousand.fuuuuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405240043522723435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7442773712288154969.post-17727070832281578982009-09-27T09:41:30.292-07:002009-09-27T09:41:30.292-07:00If everything that begins to exist must have a cau...<i>If everything that begins to exist must have a cause, and the universe began to exist, then it doesn't seem unreasonable for me to think that what caused the universe might point toward God.</i><br /><br />It's not a sin to say "I don't know". It's the strength of the scientific method. We don't plug in god or whatever to unknowns, we research them until we can fill them in with knowledge, or leave them eternally empty. We could easily substitute god in this statement with anything that can't logically be disproved, like some hyperintelligent pangalactic beings initiated expansion in our universe, or a titan slew a frost giant in another plane, who became our dimension, or something equally absurd (like jesus-did-it, heh).<br /><br />You say the universe has to have a cause, but your god doesn't have to have a cause because he is eternal. Well, why does the universe (i.e., matter in the known universe) have to have a cause? You will admit that you can believe in an uncaused god being and that is rationally acceptable, then why isn't it rationally acceptable (by your logic) to believe an uncaused universe or series of universes?<br /><br /><br /><i>How did matter, and energy come to be? Does it seem reasonable to think that nature created itself?</i><br /><br />I'll say it again: "I don't know" is not a sin. We simply know that all the matter and energy that now exists once existed in a singularity. How that came to be or what initiated the expansion is unknown now, but we <i>may figure it out</i> at some point. What if we did figure it out, and there was a purely natural explanation? Would you still believe in jesus?<br /><br /><i>Then to add force to this argument, Ethinethin, is the observation that the universe seems finely tuned to produce life on this planet.</i><br /><br />This is absurd. I won't quote the whole thing. There are billions of stars and millions of galaxies as far as we can see, and we are but a microbe on a spec of dust among all of them. There have been mass extinction events initiated by outside sources (meteors crashing to the surface) and there will be more (gamma radiation bursts from nearby planets).<br /><br />You also mention how improbable it is that the universe would happen in such a way with a fairly big number that I don't imagine any person could truly calculate, likely just a made up number (not by you, but whatever source you got it from).<br /><br />The "six numbers" thing is misleading, because it is only important to <i>life as we know it</i> and there are a hell of a lot more factors than six. Biological factors you've probably never thought about like the emergent properties of water (for an example, the density of frozen water being lower than that of aqueous water.. if it was not that way, life wouldn't have been able to survive the way it did in the ocean.<br /><br />But the thing is, those things are that way and we can observe them and calculate them. Regardless of how improbably it is, it happened and that doesn't point to a god. Here's a crude example to show the flaw in this thinking, and this is really important for you to understand. (next post)fuuuuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00405240043522723435noreply@blogger.com