I have come across two claims that I have been trying to research, yet I am having difficulty finding any useful data on the subject. The claims are as follows:

Claim One: In order for the universe to have come into being, its balance of anti-matter to matter must have been accurate to one part in ten billion. Therefore, a god must existed to bring forth the universe.

Claim Two: The universe would have been unable to sustain life had the expansion rate of the Big Bang been one billionth of a percent larger or smaller. Therefore, a god must have initiated the Big Bang.

I have found other similar claims, such as those made by Fred Hoyle, to be flawed. I'm interested in more information about the above claims.

James

Views: 22

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

They don't see the flipside of the probability If millions of universes are created every day for an infinite amount of time then the right conditions to support life is bound to happen after awhile. Its like winning the lottery. Its very unlikely to win the jackpot but it still happens.
I AGREE WITH THIS
Bring forth the vomit in my mouth. Religion is so 80's or any year before that...
Actually, it was obsolete since Darwin, as it no longer explained anything.
Just look up the fine tuning argument, which both 1 and 2 are, and you will see they are fairly dubious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Is the universe fine tuned? Would that be a good argument anyway? I don't think so.
And we think, eat, excrete, breathe, breed and die because the magic spook up there attuned the universe and its constant values to make it so??? That is Sophistry 101 – most events can be looked at as a chain of obvious, serendipitous and improbable precursors which require no “intelligent design” - the fact that we are here is substantiated by the fact that we are here, the rest is just mental masturbation or religious brain farting.

Mental masturbation is fun, and there are good reasons for it. Its part of our thinking abstract, its helped us think deeply about things that won't, wouldn't, shouldn't and or don't matter, in case of the future chance they might. It's made us a very successful species.

Their claims are way too fallacious and assume way too much.

 

Claim One: Why does it require a god? Why not a dragon instead? Or a fairy? What is a god and what makes him fit for the job? And why exclude the possibility of an inequal distribution of matter and antimatter, or other possible events? Why exclude the likelihood that there are an infinite number of universes, making one part in ten billion too equal out to being an infinite number of universes just like ours?

 

Claim Two: Why look at the universe in a biocentric fashion? How do we know that the universe wasn't finetuned for atomic explosions? Afterall, most matter we see either has or will go through such explosions, in a star. We have life because our universe permitted it. But again, what would make God worthy of such a task? Why not a dragon or a fairy instead?  Why throw God into the gaps?

 

And with an infinite number of universes, there are an infinite number of such universes that permit our type of life. However, its possible for other forms of life to exist in other universes with other laws and conditions. They also assume that this, in this universe, is the only possible type of life.

Both claims are erroneous and self-invented bs that have no data to support them. They are playing the odds game, or the game that it's too improbable for it all to have happened by "chance".. Well, It's a good thing we understand our science because they are typically science illiterates. It's the pleading for your ignorance.

If you want a good laugh on such arguments, go watch the video series "Why Do Creationists Get Laughed At?"

If you want some good insight into how our universe works, or is. I can provide a somewhat informative post here. Just let me know if you want me to do so :)

If claims one and two were refering to a closed system of opportunity, numbers like "one in a billion" sound impressive.

 

But, in a limitless system of opportunity (or even a system with unimaginablely high numbers of opportunities)... such statistics are piss in the ocean! In fact, in a limitless system, where all possible outcomes have opportunity to manifest, the odds of the universe and life manifesting are 100%.

And that includes the odds of you pissing in a specific ocean on a specific planet within an infinite universe ;) The ODDS are pretty damn good! It's no different than the odds of the location of our galaxy in the universe :P
Claim 3 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service