There is no evidence of a “designer” manifesting itself in our universe

Are you just saying that because there wasn’t a specific font?

How convenient. It’s almost as if it was designed rather than a massive fluke.

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I’ve yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

Well…………

The big bang happened a very long time ago.

That residual heat has been cooling down for a very long time (well, the energy’s being dispersed so the overall effect is things get colder).

And there are plenty of places in the universe where these conditions still aren’t right for atoms to be stable, the sun for instance! It’s quite easy even in a school lab to create conditions where you remove all the electrons from an atom, infact water is something like 1×10-14 parts hydrogen nuclei (i.e. protons).

The universe is a very big place, the odds of anything not happening are slim. Now we just need to wait for a Sperm Whale to spontaneously come into existance and fall out of the sky.

Are you just saying that because there wasn’t a specific font?

Well if Brant did it there’s be a few tell tale threaded holes about the place.

And as the thread skews towards all the usual religious twiffle, I take my leave.

Seeya…..

So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I’ve yet to be convinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

Anthropic Principle 🙂

Mr Woppit – Member
……If you posit design the Big Bang, you also have to explain what created (or “designed”)came before the designerBang . Something you and your fellow religductionists have consistently failed to do.

If you posit the Big Bang, you also have to explain what came before the Bang . Something you and your fellow reductionists have consistently failed to do.

“You can’t yet explain what happened before the beginning of the universe and time. Ha! Clearly it must be God.”

🙄

Same tired old nonsense.

Because we don’t know what caused the Big Bang, there is no reason to suppose that a god did it.

We simply don’t know. That is the scientific and rational response.

The religious response is: We don’t know what caused the Big Bang, therefore a god did it.

The first is self evident, the second is just stupid.

I know, I know – I’m just going …

I think you’ll find it’s the flying pasta monster (the spaghetti monster was on leave)

If you posit the Big Bang, you also have to explain what came before the Bang . Something you and your fellow reductionists have consistently failed to do.

The thing is, we’re working on it.

A universe with an unmanifest “designer”, looks exactly the same as a complete absence of a “designer”.

So how do science-ists know they’re not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there’s no “designer” just because it doesn’t look like there was? At the very least it seems a bit narrow-minded. There’s so much we don’t understand, yet we’re convinced it isn’t all deliberate?

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

So to my mind, the universe consists of millions of factors that need to coincide in very specific quantities/ways/etc, and I’ve yet to be covinced by any theory as to how this occurred without intervention.

Backwards reasoning.

It is not remarkable that all these constants are exactly right for the universe in which we life. Because if they weren’t, we would never have evolved to end up sitting here talking about it.

It might’ve happened a quidzillion times before with the wrong values, and we would never have been able to consider it. So of course the one with the right values is the one we live in. It’s inevitable innit.

So how do science-ists know they’re not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there’s no “designer” just because it doesn’t look like there was? At the very least it seems a bit narrow-minded. There’s so much we don’t understand, yet we’re convinced it isn’t all deliberate?

They don’t assume anything. They look at what the evidence tells them. It’s a bit like CSI. You like CSI, right? Everyone loves CSI. That’s all science is.
CSI. With less beards and one-liners, but like CSI nonetheless.

yet we’re convinced it isn’t all deliberate?

Yep.
The scientists think it was a big bang. They’re more intelligent than the cultists who think a ghost did it, so I’m going with them.

What if everybody’s wrong? Surely that’s the most likely scenario?

A universe with an unmanifest “designer”, looks exactly the same as a complete absence of a “designer”.

So how do science-ists know they’re not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there’s no “designer” just because it doesn’t look like there was? At the very least it seems a bit narrow-minded. There’s so much we don’t understand, yet we’re convinced it isn’t all deliberate?

There is no evidence of a “designer” manifesting itself in our universe

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we’ve all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we’ve all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

You don’t seem to have? Are you unique?

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we’ve all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

Now that’s just simply a lie.

If you posit the Big Bang, you also have to explain what came before the Bang . Something you and your fellow reductionists have consistently failed to do.

The thing is, we’re working on it.

He’s right, “conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC) is a possibility being studied.
Although, that’s kind a like saying the Bang wasn’t so Big after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869

GrahamS – Member

“You can’t yet explain what happened before the beginning of the universe and time. Ha! Clearly it must be God.” 🙄

yeah, roll your squitty little eyes man, it really helps your rationalist case 😆

Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than “trust me, I believe I’m right”
So, listen to an establishment authority figure whose polemic can’t actually be backed up in “everyday language” it’s all pretty much down to personal choice whether you follow the one with the white coat or the pointy hat …..

who’d a thunk higgs boson would get the religionists so worked up?

Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than “trust me, I believe I’m right”

What’s wrong with ‘We’re not sure’? I hear that one a lot. Mainly from ‘Physicologists’ mind you, not so much from ‘religionists’.
Edit: It’s really more like “We’re not sure, but these are our best guesses, based on experiments and logic you can perform yourself, if you want to”
That’s the best thing; if you build your own LHC and repeat the experiments, you’ll come to the same conclusion.

That you believe in an unmanifest “designer” despite the absence of any sign of such, is strange, but not very interesting.

Like designer stubble.

I want a teleport so make that happens otherwise it makes no sense to me … 🙄

Fact is, neither physicologists nor religionists can come up with an explanation that boils down to any more than “trust me, I believe I’m right”

Well except the “physicologists” generally come up with theories then design experiments which test those theories, and make predictions based on theoretical models then conduct projects like the LHC to test the actual outcomes. And then revise those theories based on observable evidence.

Whereas most religionists just sort of shrug after they get to the theory stage.

scuzz – Member
What’s wrong with ‘We’re not sure’? I hear that one a lot

And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena – must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!

Must try this “We’re not sure” (but give me more cash anyhow) line at my next project review meeting 😆

So how do science-ists know they’re not barking up the wrong tree by assuming there’s no “designer” just because it doesn’t look like there was?

If there was a designer then they must’ve been designed by a super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, who in turn must’ve been designed by a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-designer, …

And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena – must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!

That’s exactly the point! Do you have any idea how we can objectively study what was going on ‘before’ the Big Bang? Me neither. What would we even be looking for? Until someone figures it out, it’s a ‘we’re not sure’. And after we figure it out and run experiments, it’ll be ‘we’re still not sure, but it’s tried and tested to be accurate within this margin of error’, because that’s how accurate we can measure it with our measuring stick.

Must try this “We’re not sure” (but give me more cash anyhow) line at my next project review meeting

Would it be research if the answers were already known and proven?

Nobody would recognise it even if there was as we’ve all closed our minds to the possibility of one existing.

Lolz.

Well, proper scientists (ie not these twerps) are fully aware that there might be a god causing it all. And that there’s no way to refute or confirm that. In fact, some of them are actually believers themselves.

It’s fairly easy to make a good argument that the bible is not correct in terms of the origin of the earth. However the existence or otherwise of a god in any form is moot because it’s absolutely unproveable.

Even if the clouds rolled back and a white haired old bloke introduced himself, we would not know if he was God or just some aliens.

scuzz – Member
That’s exactly the point! Do you have any idea how we can objectively study what was going on ‘before’ the Big Bang? Me neither. Until someone figures it out, it’s a ‘we’re not sure’

When it does become an objective evidential study it will be Science, until then it’s Speculation.
It’s typical of the current Scientific Arrogance that presumes every aspect of our existence is explainable by reductionist analysis.
Does there ever become a point where the physicologists just say “We really don’t know beyond a certain ‘timepoint’ what the nature of physical existence was, so let’s just leave it as a known unknown”

(ie not these twerps)

you talking about us or the LHC squad? if it’s the former fair enough 🙂

…so let’s just leave it as a known unknown

why?

And there was me thinking Science was a fact based objective study of observed &/or recorded phenomena – must have being doing it wrong these last 25 years !!

Oooh.. can I use it again? 🙄

we would not know if he was God or just some aliens.

Surely God is an alien, since by definition she is an extraterrestrial?

Does there ever become a point where the physicologists just say “We really don’t know beyond a certain ‘timepoint’ what the nature of physical existence was, so let’s just leave it as a known unknown”

That sounds like an excellent approach to furthering our knowledge.
The “Here be dragons” approach.

who’d a thunk higgs boson would get the religionists so worked up?

THIS

FWIW – graham link up the dara clip again

Why are you feeding the troll folks?

dara clip? please share

Apparently Big Bang theory boils down to six fundamental numbers. If any of these deviate by just 1% (in one case, by several billionths of a %), life could not exist or have evolved on Earth.

Its not so much life not existing as basic chemistry not being possible. But then if there wasn’t basic chemistry we wouldn’t be around to question it all. This is the Anthropic Principle others have mentioned

As we gain a deeper understanding of the how it all fits together we may find that these “constants” of nature are actually derived from each other such that it would be impossible for the universe to exist in another way.

We don’t know yet though.

The important thing to remember is science is built upon models and theories. These theories are contstantly tested and improved upon or discarded.

Newtons celestial mechanics is an acceptable model of how large objects such as planets interact under the influence of gravity. Its good enough to put men on the moon and send probes to other planets. But its not correct, it can’t account for fluctuations in the orbit of Mercury for instance, however a better theory of gravity – Relativity – can.

The standard model will probably prove the same. At the moment it is a very good model for predicting the behaviour of sub atomic particles but its not the end. Science isn’t finished with the discovery of the Higgs.

I’m not sure given this approach that not knowing something can be seen as a failure if this leads to better understanding in the future. Surely its a better approach than just to call all the gaps “God” and leave it there.

Edit: richmtb puts it far better than I can 🙂

This one?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8[/video]

(Relevant quote from 1:48)

“Get in the ‘kin sack!” 😆

🙂
get in the sack