Science and God

[Faithofchristian]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

 

[Darkforbid]

Brilliantly presented needs a slogan though:

Atheism chosen by idiots

 

[osgart]

And people keep saying the probability argument is a dead end. But don-t it need explanation. Its odd that the universe is like minesweeper, full of bombs, and we exist on a knife's edge. The odds against life existing keep going up not down.

Some cosmic force sustaining life in all its complexity, and fragility. Heck, its odd that nature makes food, and no one notices that that is peculiar.

 

[danieldemol]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit their narrative.
But as it is, leading Atheist were held speechless.

Click on the link below

Personally I doubt this will silence atheists, and the video didn’t really seem to say the atheists were silenced, just that one of them felt challenged whilst the others seemed to think it was the best argument for God (but the video doesn’t indicate that they thought it was irrefutable).

All the video really argues in a nutshell is that the probability of intelligent life forming is very low, not that it is impossible.

It is a leap to go from low probability to it had to be divine intervention, and an even greater leap to go from divine intervention to the Christian god.

In spite of all that I still believe in God, but I think the reason I believe is because i’m wired to believe, not because God is proven.

 

[Polymath257]

From what I can see of the evidence, it seems that *life* should be fairly common in the universe. There are a LOT of planets and many are in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for their stars. I am much less convinced that a Jupiter-sized planet is required to protect against asteroids, but even if so, such planets are also in abundance.

From what I can see the *hard* step in life is going from bacterial life (based on simple cells) to eucaryotic life (based on complex cells with organells---essentially mutualism). There is another, *big* step in going from single celled life to multi-cellular life. Both of these steps on Earth took billions of years to achieve.

Finally, and this is a bit more depressing, it seems like *technological* life (say, being able to use radio) is short lived. Let's take our own civilization. We have had radio for a bit over 100 years. Do you really think we will survive another 10,000 years?

And if the average time that a technological species lasts is 10,000 years, the likelihood of *overlap* between two such species in the same galaxy goes way, way down. And that means that the likelihood of *detection* of life on other planets also goes down. This seems like a possible reason why SETI failed.

Another, perhaps even more depressing reason for SETI failing may be the 'dark universe' hypothesis: that life, in order to survive in a competitive universe, learns quickly to be quiet because those civilizations that don't are destroyed quickly.

As for the different possibilities for the strengths of the fundamental forces, we don't know that those strengths *can* be different. We don't know what, if anything, determines their strengths, and we don't know whether there are multiple universes, which would guarantee at least one 'wins the jackpot' even if the probability is low.

In any case, this is *hardly* an argument for the existence of a deity. NOBODY claims that life started from 'random forces' since the laws of nature are NOT RANDOM.

 

[Darkforbid]

From what I can see of the evidence, it seems that *life* should be fairly common in the universe. There are a LOT of planets and many are in the 'Goldilocks Zone' for their stars. I am much less convinced that a Jupiter-sized planet is required to protect against asteroids, but even if so, such planets are also in abundance.

From what I can see the *hard* step in life is going from bacterial life (based on simple cells) to eucaryotic life (based on complex cells with organells---essentially mutualism). There is another, *big* step in going from single celled life to multi-cellular life. Both of these steps on Earth took billions of years to achieve.

Finally, and this is a bit more depressing, it seems like *technological* life (say, being able to use radio) is short lived. Let's take our own civilization. We have had radio for a bit over 100 years. Do you really think we will survive another 10,000 years?

And if the average time that a technological species lasts is 10,000 years, the likelihood of *overlap* between two such species in the same galaxy goes way, way down. And that means that the likelihood of *detection* of life on other planets also goes down. This seems like a possible reason why SETI failed.

Another, perhaps even more depressing reason for SETI failing may be the 'dark universe' hypothesis: that life, in order to survive in a competitive universe, learns quickly to be quiet because those civilizations that don't are destroyed quickly.

As for the different possibilities for the strengths of the fundamental forces, we don't know that those strengths *can* be different. We don't know what, if anything, determines their strengths, and we don't know whether there are multiple universes, which would guarantee at least one 'wins the jackpot' even if the probability is low.

In any case, this is *hardly* an argument for the existence of a deity. NOBODY claims that life started from 'random forces' since the laws of nature are NOT RANDOM.

That's not even arguing what's claimed in the video

 

[usfan]

the reason I believe is because i’m wired to believe, not because God is proven.

If you have some internal 'sense' of God, or wiring, is that not evidence of the Reality of God? At least in your life?

Nothing can be 'proved,' not even this statement. ..but evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, should count for something..

 

[Polymath257]

That's not even arguing what's claimed in the video

Actually, it was. The video asked why we have not detected other life and made the claim that it is because life is rare. I pointed out that there are other good reasons for the failure to detect other intelligent life.

The video then went on to discuss the 'Rare Earth', making the claim that a Jupiter-sized planet is required for life to develop. Such large planets are common, as I noted, so that isn't an argument.

Finally, it went into the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, which I also addressed.

In none of these is the hypothesis of an intelligent creator the most natural default explanation based on the evidence, in contrast to the claims of the video.

 

[Polymath257]

If you have some internal 'sense' of God, or wiring, is that not evidence of the Reality of God? At least in your life?

No. No more so than any optical illusion, which is a result of our wiring, is evidence of anything other than that our perceptions often give bad information.

Nothing can be 'proved,' not even this statement. ..but evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, should count for something..

Which is why science repeatedly tests all of its hypotheses and requires any new hypotheses to be testable. This usually eliminates religious hypotheses because they are, for the most part, untestable.

 

[usfan]

No. No more so than any optical illusion, which is a result of our wiring, is evidence of anything other than that our perceptions often give bad information.
Which is why science repeatedly tests all of its hypotheses and requires any new hypotheses to be testable. This usually eliminates religious hypotheses because they are, for the most part, untestable.

Unfortunately, human beings are not 'scientific, rational', creatures. They blend beliefs and facts, stirred together in a primordial ooze of worldview, which they cling to with religious faith.

The blind faith in 'Really Smart People', allegedly experts in empirical reality, is just the age old human tendency to believe and Trust, to shirk responsibility for their own lives.

 

[shunyadragon]

I came across this video about Science and God.
I know already know that alot of people will denounce this video all because it will not fit into their narrative.

Click on the link below

There are too many underlying assumptions in this argument that are not science, including taking scientists out of context. It is a classic ID argument. First, randomness has no causal role in the outcome of whether planets including ours result in supporting life. Second, the number of planets discovered and described represents a very very very small sample of the possible planets even in our own galaxy. A further discussion on the actual parameters for life on planets that scientists consider necessary for the existence of life is wurthy of further discussion, which the video misrepresents.

By the way, I believe in God, and I am a scientist, and consider this video very deliberately misleading based on an ID agenda.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you have some internal 'sense' of God, or wiring, is that not evidence of the Reality of God? At least in your life?

Nothing can be 'proved,' not even this statement. ..but evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, should count for something..

If you could understand, where that leads, then it wouldn't be so important to "prove" that "the Reality of God" to the rest of us. Because you have God in your life. But that doesn't seem to be enough, right?

So let me explain something to you about some religious and some non-religious humans. They share that the meaning they personally have in their life must be the same of all other humans. Of course not one to one in all cases, but all the important cases. And what they all do, is to project their individual subjective first person meaning out on everybody else and declare that their individual subjective first person meaning is objective; i.e. so for all humans.
Once you learn to look for that and understand that your individual subjective first person meaning doesn't have to be mine and mine doesn't have to yours, we can start looking at the everyday world we share and try to figure out how to do that.
But as long as if you claim that your individual subjective first person meaning is objective; i.e. so for all humans, I fight you. But if that is so for you, then that is not particular to you, that is for all cases of where someone's individual subjective first person meaning is objective; i.e. so for all humans.
So if you are an objectivist as described above, there is another possibility. Join us, what understand that the world has an element of subjectivity and you can't prove, shown evidence or truth for that your subjectivity is mine nor that mine is yours.

 

[HonestJoe]

I came across this video about Science and God.

That isn’t a video about God. It was a video about the chances of the development of intelligent life in the universe which the presenter took to a conclusion that some form of intelligence is the most likely explanation. Even if that conclusion is valid (which could be debated), it doesn’t automatically lead to any specific deity and certainly not the western version of the Christian god he and you are hoping to spin it in to.

It’s be perfectly legitimate science to propose the existence of some form of intelligent designer or guide in the creation of life and to formally investigate that hypothesis (set of hypotheses really). I’d suggest that the reason none of the proponents actually do that is because they’ve already have their pre-defined unquestionable truth, being whatever religiously defined god they happen to believe it (often directly contradicting each other).

There could indeed be (or have been) some kind of intelligence involved. The problem nobody has developed any formal hypothesis on that basis nor presented any positive evidence to support one. Another key problem is that we would need some source or origin for that intelligence, essentially just shifting the problem back a step. I don’t see how it takes less faith to believe an intelligence somehow existed, creating the conditions which allowed life to develop than to believe the conditions somehow existed to allow life to develop. Both have a unknown starting point but the former proposes an additional step with no evidential basis.

 

[Thief]

And if the average time that a technological species lasts is 10,000 years, the likelihood of *overlap* between two such species in the same galaxy goes way, way down. And that means that the likelihood of *detection* of life on other planets also goes down. This seems like a possible reason why SETI failed.

to this one point I might agree

a 'wave' of any kind....at the speed of light
might get here LOOOOOOoooooong after the source has died out

 

[Audie]

From what I can see the *hard* step in life is going from bacterial life (based on simple cells) to eucaryotic life (based on complex cells with organells---essentially mutualism). There is another, *big* step in going from single celled life to multi-cellular life. Both of these steps on Earth took billions of years to achieve.

Finally, and this is a bit more depressing, it seems like *technological* life (say, being able to use radio) is short lived. Let's take our own civilization. We have had radio for a bit over 100 years. Do you really think we will survive another 10,000 years?

And if the average time that a technological species lasts is 10,000 years, the likelihood of *overlap* between two such species in the same galaxy goes way, way down. And that means that the likelihood of *detection* of life on other planets also goes down. This seems like a possible reason why SETI failed.

Another, perhaps even more depressing reason for SETI failing may be the 'dark universe' hypothesis: that life, in order to survive in a competitive universe, learns quickly to be quiet because those civilizations that don't are destroyed quickly.

As for the different possibilities for the strengths of the fundamental forces, we don't know that those strengths *can* be different. We don't know what, if anything, determines their strengths, and we don't know whether there are multiple universes, which would guarantee at least one 'wins the jackpot' even if the probability is low.

In any case, this is *hardly* an argument for the existence of a deity. NOBODY claims that life started from 'random forces' since the laws of nature are NOT RANDOM.

You might like to read the tidy little volume by a Dr Lewis
Thomas called "Lives of a Cell."

It seems to me, from what little microbiology and
related that I studied, that the bigger problem for life
has been to keep "others" from joining the club, not
to to find ways to get some sort of mutualism going.

The panicy response of the body to certain sorts of
bacteria (see diphtheria) are what makes the disease
deadly-kind of like going after the burglar with flame
throwers and artillery.

The power of the immune system is a much or more
to preserve "self" than to fight disease, as such.

Your mitochondria are more than a little obviously
"others" who are incorporated into the cell.

As for the development of multicellular life, of
course it was a project, but look no further than
filmamentous algae to see how you could get
started. Or sponges and hydra, if you prefer
animal life.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you have some internal 'sense' of God, or wiring, is that not evidence of the Reality of God? At least in your life?

Nothing can be 'proved,' not even this statement. ..but evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, should count for something..

There is no evidence to conclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt, In fact no objective verifiable evidence whatsoever,

 

[usfan]

There is no evidence to conclude 'beyond a reasonable doubt, In fact no objective verifiable evidence whatsoever,

Of course there is.. the internal 'wiring" the poster mentioned. It is personal and subjective, but it is evidence. Why would you demand that people deny their internal evidence, just because you don't believe in it?

 

[Polymath257]

Of course there is.. the internal 'wiringx the poster mentioned. It is personal and subjective, but it is evidence. Why would you demand that people deny their internal evidence, just because you don't believe in it?

Because it is known that internal evidence is very often faulty?

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course there is.. the internal 'wiringx the poster mentioned. It is personal and subjective, but it is evidence. Why would you demand that people deny their internal evidence, just because you don't believe in it?

There is no evidence that internal wirings(?) represent any evidence othr than 'internal wiring, what ever that is.

 

[usfan]

Because it is known that internal evidence is very often faulty?

Then how do you trust yours? How can you insist that others are 'wrong!' for trusting their 'wiring?'

There is no evidence that internal wirings(?) represent any evidence othr than 'internal wiring, what ever that is.

Internal wiring suggests a wire-er.. to those who sense it, at least..