ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4068
Latest Activity: 2 hours ago

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Nanderthals had Shallow Gene Pool

Started by John Jubinsky 2 hours ago. 0 Replies

Study Says Most Americans Doubt Big Bang

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Zachary L. Hagedorn 23 hours ago. 6 Replies

Is forcing religion on children child abuse?

Started by Dax Wilson. Last reply by Zachary L. Hagedorn on Monday. 31 Replies

New Way to Genetically Treat Diseases

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Joseph P on Monday. 7 Replies

Strange Science

Started by Sven Andersson. Last reply by Francis Kamuyu Apr 15. 17 Replies

Movie - Stephen Hawking's Life with First Wife

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Apr 13. 2 Replies

Atheist activism

Started by Madhukar Kulkarni. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 27. 5 Replies

Quantum Entanglement and Faster than Light Travel

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Mar 24. 15 Replies

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Jim Pigeon Mar 22. 42 Replies

The "Cute" T-Rex

Started by Patricia Mar 14. 0 Replies

Scientists Say Some People Indifferent to Music

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gregory Phillip Dearth Mar 14. 5 Replies

The 'Most High' father of Yahweh

Started by Madhukar Kulkarni. Last reply by Joan Denoo Mar 5. 26 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Marc Draco on January 20, 2009 at 11:47am
Calm down? Whatever made you imagine I wasn't calm? ;-)

How is big bang creating our laws an argument for a designer?

I am aware of the anthropic principal (and the arguments both for and against).
Comment by Alex Donovan on January 20, 2009 at 10:36am
"But before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics as we understand them; or at least, we can't be sure of any. Space-time as we understand only came into existence at Big Bang. "

Calm down, and I'll try to explain...
What you see as 'laws of physics' are a property of the Universe as it exists now. This is just a variation on the teleological argument. The next logical question is this: "What designed the designer?"

As for the Anthropic Principle, what it states is that no god is necessary to explain the universe: We're here to ask the question, no matter how improbable our existence may be, because circumstances lined up correctly for it to be possible. This doesn't mean that a 'god' did it. It just means that even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while.
Comment by Marc Draco on January 20, 2009 at 9:47am
But before the Big Bang, there were no laws of physics as we understand them; or at least, we can't be sure of any. Space-time as we understand only came into existence at Big Bang.
Comment by John on January 20, 2009 at 9:25am
Marco, the "laws of physics" simply are. I wouldn't say they were given to us as much as they are an inevitable result or an inherent function of the universe.

That is a very good argument against a persistent god though. The universe exists now in a state that can be measured and studied to a staggering precision. A god in the current universe is simply not necessary. I agree with you Dr. Meaden, Vic Stenger has a most interesting position on this. I read your link and it is quite interesting.
Comment by Marc Draco on January 20, 2009 at 9:11am
Didn't the Big Bang give us the laws of physics that we know now?
Comment by Dr. Terence Meaden on January 20, 2009 at 9:08am
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin/forum/topics/2182797:Topic:110343

You can shift this discussion if you wish to another part of this group's discussion area as prompted by the Big Question, "What happened before the Big Bang?".
Although we can never know, we can try approaching possible answers through applying the known laws of physics. One possibility that I find attractive has been well discussed by Vic Stenger. I wrote a piece about this, and sent it to Vic Stenger for comment (with which he agreed). The URL is
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin/forum/topics/2182797:Topic:110343

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin/forum/topics/2182797:Topic:110343
Comment by Marcus Tullius Cicero on January 20, 2009 at 8:21am
Strong AP: the laws of physics are biased toward life or, as Dyson is reported to have once said, the universe was aware that we were coming.

Andrei Linde, recently. Brandon Carter, in the 70's. John Polkinghorne, recently. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate. There are others.

When one discusses a theory or paradigm it does not necessarily mean he believes it to be true. It is a thought experiment. Relax, take off the boxing gloves, and join us in the land of cool cogitation.
(:
Comment by Alex Donovan on January 20, 2009 at 7:29am
" how do we deal with the large number of theoretical physicists who have arrived at the "strong" Anthropic Principle as a result of their scientific, not theological, research? "

Can you name some of these scientists, and what their claims are? Are you aware of what the Anthropic Principle REALLY states?
Comment by Tedster on January 20, 2009 at 12:25am
To yes, I agree. God didn't make me an atheist, he isn't around to do it. This gives to good conversation starters.
Comment by Marcus Tullius Cicero on January 19, 2009 at 7:35pm
A new thread to pursue in "Origins": how do we deal with the large number of theoretical physicists who have arrived at the "strong" Anthropic Principle as a result of their scientific, not theological, research? These are brilliant men, some of whom are Nobel Laureates. Others have said that if there is only one universe, not a multiverse, then a conscious fine-tuner is needed. Another has said that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, that a conscious observer is necessary for it to exist.

Oh, the problems we have! Just wait until this hits the lay press!
 

Members (4068)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

Latest Activity

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service