Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

[Melancholy]

Is it possible to believe in both God and Evolution?

Yes it is possible.

 

[Yeshua_Lives]

Yes. The Evolution of GOD. Evolving from an "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".

 

[Autodidact]

Camanintx :

Frankly I'm sick of the rather pretentious / condescending commentary of some smug secularists on this site, who take ( for example ) Darwinian Dogma ( and it is dogma ) / an Atheistic world view ( in the guise of objective science ) at face value, without ever seriously questioning any of it. BUT then get all bent outa shape when others do. Darwin was a very mortal man with feet of clay, he had some serious flaws...ditto Darwinism/ neo-Darwinism/ science orthodoxy ( inclusive of the notions that our universe was an accident when all signs point to the physical constants of physics and chemistry being purposefully ' fine tuned' even at a nanosecond after the BIG BANG ) ...

I don't actually mind when the debate gets heated, my objection is when others Hypocritically complain when they get a taste of their own medicine. But so long as you can dish it out, and also take it Camanintx ( which I seriously doubt ) ....there’s NO PROBLEM

CHEERS

So, did you understand Camantix's example? If so, would you like to respond to it?

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

The argument that physical constants were fine tuned doesn't hold water (pun intended) unless you can show that they could have been different from what they are.

I believe I said that they ' appear' fine tuned...Quite a number of renown physicists have said that there is NO logical reason, the universal constants had to take ' the specific' values that they did ( leastways not if the birth and subsequent ' evolution' of the cosmos was a blind/ purposeless/ random/ spontaneous event...IF , of course, the cosmos has been Beneficently arranged by Omniscience, with carbon based life forms as its goal, that’s another matter...

That is why the odds against our ' anthropic' universe appearing spontanously...have been calculated as ' astonomically high' ( and that's putting it mildly ) by many many renown physicists...Such calculations/ realizations/ conclusions...by some of the greatest scientific minds in history...could well have enormous theolgocial implications...when push comes to shove...we shall see...

I really should try to dig up ...some of these quotes / calculations...they're seem pretty profound/ enlightening ...at least in my mind

 

[camanintx]

I believe I said that they ' appear' fine tuned...Quite a number of renown physicists have said that there is NO logical reason, the universal constants had to take ' the specific' values that they did...

Actually, there is a very simple, logical explanation. The universe is not fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. While a different universe may not be capable of supporting life as we know it, that does not mean it incapable of supporting any life.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe I said that they ' appear' fine tuned...Quite a number of renown physicists have said that there is NO logical reason, the universal constants had to take ' the specific' values that they did...

That is why the odds against our ' anthropic' universe appearing spontanously...have been calculated as ' astonomically high' ( and that's putting it mildly ) by many many renown physicists...Such calculations/ realizations/ conclusions...by some of the greatest scientific minds in history...could well have enormous theolgocial implications...when push comes to shove...we shall see...

I really should try to dig up ...some of these quotes / calculations...they're seem pretty profound/ enlightening ...at least in my mind

Hmmm, so you're comparing our universe to all the other universes you know about, in order to calculate the "odds?" It seems you know no more about statistics than you do about biology.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Camanintx :

Frankly I'm sick of the rather pretentious / condescending commentary of some smug secularists on this site, who take ( for example ) Darwinian Dogma ( and it is dogma ) / an Atheistic world view ( in the guise of objective science ) at face value, without ever seriously questioning any of it. BUT then get all bent outa shape when others do. Darwin was a very mortal man with feet of clay, he had some serious flaws...ditto Darwinism/ neo-Darwinism/ science orthodoxy ( inclusive of the notions that our universe was an accident when all signs point to the physical constants of physics and chemistry being purposefully ' fine tuned' even at a nanosecond after the BIG BANG ) ...

I don't actually mind when the debate gets heated, my objection is when others Hypocritically complain when they get a taste of their own medicine. But so long as you can dish it out, and also take it Camanintx ( which I seriously doubt ) ....there’s NO PROBLEM

CHEERS

WOW!!!!!!

I totally glossed over your rant....

Dang....I need to watchout for stuff like this.....

 

[Willamena]

I believe I said that they ' appear' fine tuned...

So, are we to take these "appearances" seriously?

That is why the odds against our ' anthropic' universe appearing spontanously...have been calculated as ' astonomically high' ( and that's putting it mildly ) by many many renown physicists...

The odds were deliberately calculated high because it 'appears' that way?

 

[camanintx]

That is why the odds against our ' anthropic' universe appearing spontanously...have been calculated as ' astonomically high' ( and that's putting it mildly ) by many many renown physicists...Such calculations/ realizations/ conclusions...by some of the greatest scientific minds in history...could well have enormous theolgocial implications...when push comes to shove...we shall see...

I told you he wouldn't understand what Douglas Adams was saying.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx:

While a different universe may not be capable of supporting life as we know it, that does not mean it incapable of supporting any life.

NONSENSE...IF any ONE of the universal constants were even slightly different than they are...NO LIFE...I repeat NO LIFE of any kind would be possible...nor even would any galaxies be possible...nor even would any atoms heavier than hydrogen or helium be possible !

Camanintx:

I told you he wouldn't understand what Douglas Adams was saying.

Kindly provide the quote them oh pompous one...BTW from the above quote about ' life as we know it' it's patently obvious that YOU do not even understand the implications of the STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE'

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVOSIRY***

Please be civil while debating this topic.

Thanks

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Autodidact:

Hmmm, so you're comparing our universe to all the other universes you know about, in order to calculate the "odds?" It seems you know no more about statistics than you do about biology.

What other universes ? We know of none...and we have evidence for none. The odds against our Anthropic universe appearing ' spontaneously/ purely by chance '...have been calculated by considering mathematically the effect on cosmological ' evolution' of tweaking any one of the universal constants even slightly...

For example, Steven Hawking calculated ( this is strictly from memory ) that IF the ratio of the strong to weak atomic force was altered by even one quadrillionth of one percent...Not only life , but the formation of stars and galaxies lasting billions of years , would not have been possible.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Hela :

Frankly I'm sick of the rather pretentious / condescending commentary of some smug secularists on this site, who take ( for example ) Darwinian Dogma ( and it is dogma ) / an Atheistic world view ( in the guise of objective science ) at face value, without ever seriously questioning any of it. BUT then get all bent outa shape when others do. Darwin was a very mortal man with feet of clay, he had some serious flaws...ditto Darwinism/ neo-Darwinism/ science orthodoxy ( inclusive of the notions that our universe was an accident when all signs point to the physical constants of physics and chemistry being purposefully ' fine tuned' even at a nanosecond after the BIG BANG ) ...

...I don't actually mind when the debate gets heated, my objection is when others Hypocritically complain when they get a taste of their own medicine. But so long as you can dish it out, and also take it Camanintx ( which I seriously doubt ) ....there’s NO PROBLEM

DreGod07 :

WOW!!!!!!...I totally glossed over your rant....Dang....I need to watchout for stuff like this.....

I was responding to Camanintx smug and condescending assertions that I obviously ' WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND' Douglas Adam's arguments against/ objections to the notion that the cosmos appears ‘ fine tuned’ Camanintx was clearly baiting/ acting condescendingly / looking for a ‘ fight’ here IMO

Autodidact :

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

The overwheliming signs that the universal physical contants were ' fine tuned ' in order to produce an ‘ orderly’ evolution of the cosmos ...inclusive of the eventual arrival of carbon based life....has EVERYTHING to do with precepts of ‘ intelligent/ purposeful' evolution...Most particularly, the original question ‘ Can one believe in both evolution and God ?’

You seem to be confusing ‘ evolution’ ( the notion that the entire cosmos is , and has always been, in a state of flux, which is INDISPUTABLE ! ) with ‘ Darwinian’ evolution ( meaningly blind/ unintelligent/ spontaneous/ purposeless evolution ) ....Darwinism is simply a theory ...NOT hard science NOR an established fact The Atheistic notion that the cosmos arrived ' completely by accident ' is similarly just a theory...and I do not believe that the preponderance of evidence...the seemingly ' fine tuned' physical constants etc. ...supports this atheistic hypothesis...

Autodidact:

So, did you understand Camantix's example? If so, would you like to respond to it?

If you’re referring to his reference to Douglas Adams...NO ...I haven’t read it yet...Nor have I read through this entire thread yet. ...I WILL...And ' yes' I'm curious now , so I would like to read/ respond to whatever Adam's said...BUT I’m pretty pressed for time today....so I probably wont get to that till tomorrow...

HOWEVER...If I recall correctly Douglas Adams was just a comedic writer/ author of ‘ The Hitchhiker guide to the Galaxy/ Last Chance to See’ etcetera...He was ( deceased now ) a highly entertaining/ great writer...Don't get me wrong...BUT

Whatever Adam's said, hardly qualifies him as an expert when it comes to gaging the significance of the universal constants. And Camanintx seems to erroneously equate ‘ understanding’ Adam’s arguments with ‘ agreeing’ with them...WHICH IS SHEER NONSENSE / NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING

CHEERS ET AL.

 

[Autodidact]

Camanintx:

NONSENSE...IF any ONE of the universal constants were even slightly different than they are...NO LIFE...I repeat NO LIFE of any kind would be possible...nor even would any galaxies be possible...nor even would any atoms heavier than hydrogen or helium be possible !

Camanintx:

Kindly provide the quote them oh pompous one...BTW from the above quote about ' life as we know it' it's patently obvious that YOU do not even understand the implications of the STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE'

Well I'm sure that I don't; I'm not sure that anyone does, including the various physicists who quite strongly disagree about exactly what it is and what its implications are, but what I'm quite sure of is that you don't, at least to the people who thought up the various versions of it, all of whom reject any misuse of it by proponents of Intelligent Design.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact:

What other universes ? We know of none...and we have evidence for none.

Exactly, and just for that reason, it is impossible to calculate the odds of this one.

The odds against our Anthropic universe appearing ' spontaneously/ purely by chance '...have been calculated by considering mathematically the effect on cosmological ' evolution' of tweaking any one of the universal constants even slightly...

For example, Steven Hawking calculated ( this is strictly from memory ) that IF the ratio of the strong to weak atomic force was altered by even one quadrillionth of one percent...Not only life , but the formation of stars and galaxies lasting billions of years , would not have been possible.

Yup, you can do that all day. The odds against me sitting here typing this are virtually astronomical; yet I'm doing it. Isn't that amazing! You can't do statistics with a sample of one. Sorry. And btw, the odds of anything happening which has already happened are exactly 100%, including the odds that the universe would be just exactly how it is, right down to this post.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hela :

DreGod07 :

I was responding to Camanintx smug and condescending assertions that I obviously ' WOULD NOT UNDERSTAND' Douglas Adam's arguments against/ objections to the notion that the cosmos appears ‘ fine tuned’ Camanintx was clearly baiting/ acting condescendingly / looking for a ‘ fight’ here IMO

No problem....

....Darwinism is simply a theory ...NOT hard science NOR an established fact The Atheistic notion that the cosmos arrived ' completely by accident ' is similarly just a theory...and I do not believe that the preponderance of evidence...the seemingly ' fine tuned' physical constants etc. ...supports this atheistic hypothesis...

While I understand how you fell here not all of us atheist fit this description.

 

[camanintx]

For example, Steven Hawking calculated ( this is strictly from memory ) that IF the ratio of the strong to weak atomic force was altered by even one quadrillionth of one percent...Not only life , but the formation of stars and galaxies lasting billions of years , would not have been possible.

The problem with this argument is that no one knows how much the ratio of the strong to weak atomic force can vary. Just because other combinations of physical constants are conceivable does not mean they are possible.

The overwheliming signs that the universal physical contants were ' fine tuned ' in order to produce an ‘ orderly’ evolution of the cosmos ...inclusive of the eventual arrival of carbon based life....has EVERYTHING to do with precepts of ‘ intelligent/ purposeful' evolution...Most particularly, the original question ‘ Can one believe in both evolution and God ?’

What Douglas Adams and many others understand that you fail to is that the presence of life in this universe does not mean that the universe was designed for life. If we can conceive of a universe with different physical constants then we can also conceive of different forms of life that can exist within those constants. The fact that carbon based life exists in this universe is a result of the physical constants being what they are, not a cause.

If you want to read a more through explanation of the problems with the fine tuning argument, I suggest the following paper:

http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/papers/finetuning.pdf

 

[logician]

The problem with this argument is that no one knows how much the ratio of the strong to weak atomic force can vary. Just because other combinations of physical constants are conceivable does not mean they are possible.



What Douglas Adams and many others understand that you fail to is that the presence of life in this universe does not mean that the universe was designed for life. If we can conceive of a universe with different physical constants then we can also conceive of different forms of life that can exist within those constants. The fact that carbon based life exists in this universe is a result of the physical constants being what they are, not a cause.

If you want to read a more through explanation of the problems with the fine tuning argument, I suggest the following paper:

http://homepage.mac.com/mcolyvan/papers/finetuning.pdf

Good post.

 

[Troublemane]

Actually, there is a very simple, logical explanation. The universe is not fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. While a different universe may not be capable of supporting life as we know it, that does not mean it incapable of supporting any life.

I totally agree. The problem with trying to argue the sheer improbability of life arising out of randomness alone is that we have no data on how common life is in the universe. Another factor is the tendency to take the long string of coincidences in the history of humanity from the beginning of time til now as proof that someone or something must have manipulated events in order for us to arrive here, at this computer reading these posts. Its all very ego-fulfilling, and reminds me very much of the medieval view of earth as center of the universe, only now its humanity: geocentrism replaced by anthropocentrism.

there is in fact no proof that life cannot arise wherever the conditions allow. i for one would be fascinated to find out if intelligent life was abundant in the cosmos, and how do they think the cosmos came to be? what are their beliefs, and how would being born under two suns and three moons alter your perception of the universe? (would there be two Gods if we had two suns?) of course its all very speculative, but thats the fun of it.

 

[logician]

Another possibility which must be considered is that life is an incidental byproduct of this universe, neither created nor pre-planned, therefore relegating the "just the right parameters" argument as meaningless.