Is there a God?

[Sanne Panne]

"For example, by chance the earth is exactly the right distance away from the sun - any nearer we would burn to a crisp or any further we would freeze. By chance the earth rotates on its axis at the right speed to produce moderate temperatures and the other planets just happen to be there to prevent earth from shifting from its orbit. By chance we have gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force all required for the earth to have carbon, oxygen and iron - elements vital to life. If the electromagnetism was weaker atoms could not combine to form molecules; if stronger electrons would be trapped preventing chemical reactions needed for life - so just be chance it's the right strength. If the strong nuclear force was weaker 2% weaker only hydrogen would exist. If stronger there would be no hydrogen"

The circumstances under which our universe exists and behaves according to certain physical laws that allow our planet to exist at this moment are perfect, sure, but how many other solar systems or stars or planets may have failed (and are still failing/disappearing) because the circumstances weren't (or are no longer) perfect? The fact that our solar system exists is chance and most likely temporary and, more importantly, the fact that we're here to witness it is chance too because the circumstances under which life can exist are perfect on this planet but on how many billions of planets has life failed because the circumstances were not perfect? And how many times has life not started and ended on this planet before any bacteria came crawling out of the soup?

I think the error in the "life is so perfect and the circumstances have to be in such a perfect balance for it to exist that it can't be chance" argument is that we don't fully realise how long it's taken for the universe and life to evolve to their current situations and in how many locations (planets, stars, random rocks) some form of life started and then ended again at either a very early (most often) or a somewhat later stage (less often as more conditions have to be met and more "accidents" have to happen). It's the fact that we are the result of one of the relatively successful combinations of circumstances and sequences of events that makes so many of us think we're special. And yes, maybe we are relatively special because life may not get to this relatively advanced state very often in this universe (maybe only a million times so far, and maybe only at two impossibly distant locations at the same time). But it's not because there's design behind it. It's because there's so much time and space available (of which we humans haven't evolved to really comprehend the size, maybe THAT'S the real problem!) that yes, it almost had to happen (and will happen again, here or elsewhere).

I think humans take to religion because we are smart enough to wonder why things are as they are but not smart enough to truly comprehend space and time. I am happy accepting that I'm not smart enough to truly comprehend space and time. Logic points entirely in the direction of chance rather than design so I'll go by that.

Sorry for poor language here and there, not a native speaker. Hope I got my point across...

Edited to correct a typo

[fractionater]

well said

[fractionater]

Now this sort of story, in today's Times, really makes me mad!!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6972008.ece

rather than try to find out the scientific reasons behind what actually happened, the idiots go declare it as a "Miracle" caused by the "hand of God"!

[Huguenot]

From The Goldilocks Enigma - those existence options in full...

The absurd universe

Our universe just happens to be the way it is.

The unique universe

There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.

The multiverse

Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.

Creationism

A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.

The life principle

There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.

The self-explaining universe

A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).

The fake universe

We live inside a virtual reality simulation.

The fact that Curly is struggling with the idea of an 'absurd universe' (just coincidence) doesn't mean the only other option is God and creationism.

[ironjawcannon]

No.

[HAL9000]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> From The Goldilocks Enigma ...

The Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God demands belief in Him based on faith alone.

Therefore, such a God is likely to have created a Universe that does not appear to require His participation in its creation.

Therefore, scientific proof that He doesn't exist may be evidence that He does exist!

[Huguenot]

Ah, very clever. ;-)

[mockney piers]

I thought that was called the babel-fish paradox, or is that its reverse?

;)

[Huguenot]

For those without a copy of the book...

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [as the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

[HAL9000]

Curly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... By chance we

> have gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear

> force and weak nuclear force all required for the

> earth to have carbon, oxygen and iron - elements

> vital to life. If the electromagnetism was weaker

> atoms could not combine to form molecules; if

> stronger electrons would be trapped preventing

> chemical reactions needed for life - so just b[y]

> chance it's the right strength. If the strong

> nuclear force was [] 2% weaker only hydrogen

> would exist. If stronger there would be no

> hydrogen - again by chance it's the right strength

> along with the weak nuclear force which is just

> weak enough so the hydrogen in the sun burns at a

> slow and steady rate. ...

The strengths of the physical forces of our Universe may not be the only values that can sustain life.

The January 2010 issue of Scientific American magazine features an interesting article - Looking for Life in the Multiverse - which argues that 'Universes with different physical laws might still be habitable'.

[Huguenot]

Dammit, I'm going to have to subscribe now!

[HAL9000]

Use the Force, Hugo.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I dropped a lighted cigarette in the snow today. It landed filter down thus enabling me to retrieve it and carry on smoking.

Your fealty and homage will be graciously received.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Turns out God exists and is a Rams fan I see...

[Sue]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dropped a lighted cigarette in the snow today.

> It landed filter down thus enabling me to retrieve

> it and carry on smoking.

xxxxxx

But how many times has it landed the other way?

And how much of it was there left?

:))

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

This goddess is not in the habit of dropping her cigarettes. It was a one-off, genuine miracle.

[Sue]

Now if it had turned into a full pack of twenty, that would have been a miracle :))

[The Chair]

This topic has become alarmingly frivolous.....

[huncamunca]

its a discussion about god, of course its going to be frivolous, as you are dealing with the absurd - this kind of debate invariably ends with piss taking by 50% & the other 50% trying to out philosphise each other & score points with mammoth cut n past wikipedia bollocks.

[mockney piers]

I've seen much absurdity and indignance on this thread, but there has been genuine debate and uncertainly haven't seen acres of wikipedia C&P jobs.

Do you actually live your day to day life in this acerbic and condescending manner snuncamunca or do you reserve it just for us?

[huncamunca]

you dont have to eat a dog shit to know it tastes bad, so why bother musing over how it would taste if served with truffle oil and porcini mushrooms, on a bed of saffron rice innit.

If you want to enter a debate on god, then come up with something new, rather than a cod rehash of a couple of thousand years of someo elses dreary metaphysical & turgid theological ramblings.

anyway, this intellectual pygmy will be off next week to take on "new challeges", so it will be back to orthodox Huncamnunca postings, but I will sometimes check back on read oonly on read only to see whether a verdict has been reached on this particular subject.I am not holding my acerbic breath.

[KidKruger]

Having read this thread there's lots of points made, some quite interesting ones too.

However, there was no need for 15 pages...

The simple answer is NO there is NO GOD.

Now settle down !

[silverfox]

huncamunca said:

"you dont have to eat a dog shit to know it tastes bad, so why bother musing over how it would taste if served with truffle oil and porcini mushrooms, on a bed of saffron rice innit."

Bad analaogy here huncamunca, as you accept that dog poo exists.

The quest of many on this thread is to try to find an answer to the question whether 'God' (however defined) exists. That we've failed to find the answer is understandable given the magnitude of what is possibly the ultimate question. However, there's no harm in trying to find that answer whether it be yes or no.

So, I don't agree this thread is dealing with the 'absurd'. There are many issues we try to understand that are wildly unreasonable and illogical, eg, quantum theory - it's part of our innate search for knowledge and meaning.

For example, there was an interesting article by Matthew Syed in The Times on Saturday on infinity, which was inspired by Fabrice Bellard, a French computer programmer, who has computed pi to 2.7 trillion decimal places. Syed, an athiest, says:

'In his novel The Picturegoers, David Lodge gives a graphic description of infinity as it applies to time:

?Think of a ball of steel as large as the world, and a fly alighting on it once every million years. When the ball of steel is rubbed away by the friction, eternity will not even have begun.?

Spend a few minutes thinking about that and if you are not gripped by a strange, almost metaphysical feeling of nausea, you are not thinking hard enough.'

Any attempt to answer the question 'Is there a God?' is a bit like that - it's mind-bending, probably unfathomable - but not absurd.

Life would be so simple if we all had Kidkruger's existential outlook.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6981495.ece

[Narnia]

Does this help?

[Mark]

You're filling a void with something made up. Just because something exists does not mean that someone/thing created it. We are intelligent enough to know that something was created by another person, such as a painting, but saying that a universe creator exists but we shouldn't dismiss it because there's no proof is daft.

The wind that blows through the trees and rustles the leaves is the bellowing of bum air from an invisible gigantic man called Dave (who is a stamp collector in his spare time). paulanouicer, are you telling us that you cannot dismiss this theory because something has to make the wind move and put it in motion? It is something that we cannot recognise but, as it is written that it is the Air of Dave, but more importantly it is neither provable or non-provable, it must be true.

[edited once] to word it more proper