Closed Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God?

[sanskuro]

Pahiya na naman

 

[jayendecastro]

jayendecastro, post: 11761797, member: 744408"]
How is morality relative to the hostility of the universe?? I dont get what u meant by this as i see no correlation between the two. Unless ur assuming that my moral standards are the one holding me back from believing ur point then thats makes no sense at all.

The entire universe is not hostile to life. I said most of it. If u read what i wrote that the universe allowed life to exist then u would know that im not asserting that the universe is hostile to life, parts of it are.

You speak of the universe as 'hostile'. I think we have to review the meaning of hostile. whether you mean metaphorical, anthropomorphic or literal..we should know that the state of hostility only make sense when an intelligent agency is involved and of course an intelligent agent with moral knowledge. to accuse or label the universe is hostile as a whole or in parts is actually pointless. hostile means, unfriendly, opposition, or enemy...we can not say the universe is hostile if we do not have moral standards be that as an atheist or theist or whatever. we can just simply say, the universe is indifferent to our individual liking or longing in life. the universe has no intention to be hostile to you. it has no intention to make you suffer.you wish to see reality in a way you should think must be perfect. you wish the universe unfold in a way you wanted as individuals. this is true the way you say things here means, the universe or life must me like this so and so...without your moral standards, hence, you yourself must be indifferent to the sufferings or death. you are longing for a perfect universe from your moral standard, but the universe is simply the way it is...


jayendecastro; Again, like i said. I agree with the constants, the Lambda, emf, cc, gravity, etc.. those parameters created the environment that would later on produce life. LIFE is the universe is a fact. Thats why we're can discuss this matter now ryt? What i dont agree with is the "tuner" aspect of ur argument.
What ever the case that "tuner" may be the fact that this constant came in to be does not prove an existence of such.


let us be careful with our choice of words here. you used the word 'created'. to my understanding means, in this case, creation ex nihilo...how could you be even consistent to your arguments when you say that these constants or laws of phsyics 'created' the environment that later produced life? creation involves a purpose, the thing created or created ex nihilo presupposes an agency or power to produce a purposeful creation. when you speak of 'created' you already contradicted yourself. creation is vastly different from accidental or randomness.

i do not even say there must be a tuner. the statement 'there must be a tuner' is different from 'there maybe a tuner'.

the first statement is a hasty or jumping to conclusion. if the universe is fine tune, it does not necessarily follow that it has a fine tuner, an agency beyond the universe.

the second statement is scientific. it goes either way. there maybe a fine tuner or there maybe not. that is why we keep digging and exploring reality to confirm if the universe is actually fine tune by a fine tuner or a pure accident.

do you think the answer is already at hand?





jayendecastro;U mentioned the dinosaurs and other ancient creatures. The dinosaurs were wiped out by one of the Big 5... How does fine tuning applied to that if a number of mass extinctions have to happen?? Wudnt a fine tuned for life be more conducive?


i think you greatly misunderstood the fine tuning theory/argument. simply, the whole universe must be finely tuned to be well balanced, and then for life to emerge, evolved and later so intelligent that the universe sees itself thru life...
the laws in the universe must be delicately harmonized in order for life to emerge any even the smallest deviation of parameters/values will not make life possible.

the dinosaurs extinction is just a stage into the cosmic time scale. i have three points here to say..

1. the dinosaurs were wondrous creatures, a superb engineering. their biological structure were so amazing..imagine from simplest organism to such grandiose creatures..i must be in awe. to others maybe, these creatures were simply nothing but moving blobs in the planet millions of years ago, but to me, they were of great beauty, of superb engineering of whatever mechanisms run these living creatures.

2. when these creatures were extinct or wiped out, did life stop? did the universe deny the proliferation of other kind of biological life? again, in our cosmic time scale, the answer is no..since new forms life evolve..smaller yet of another kind of beauty and ultimately humans came into being.

3. if the universe is not conducive to life, how these biological creatures, from hundred of millions of years to present even exist? do you really grasp the profound impact of fine tuned universe? the universe is so conducive to life that milllions or even billions of life variety existed and existing..these living creatures come and go in the cosmic time scale..death and birth are necessary part of the universe. a cycle that is happening as long as this universe is stable..but, by that time, humans, milllion or billions of years from now can reshape or maintain the universe or even go beyond it. the universe is so vast that will allow humans to explore and invent new ways to maintain the planet. it is not the universe's fault if humankind will obliterate itself thru nuclear holocaust..maybe humans as we know today will go extinct in such stupid catastrophe and lowly forms life will eventually gradually evolve to take the humans place in this planet until they will learn such mistakes to be able to create technology to escape the sun's death or maintain the sun as it is now or escape the inevitable heat death of the universe...hundreds of millions of years or billions of years is a vast and very ample time to maybe even reverse the eventual death of the physical universe.




jayendecastro;Humility is accepting the fact that the universe made life and not that the universe was fine-tuned for life. I recognise that im not the end-goal here.


it is a matter of perspective. your statement above is your own perception of reality and your intellectual and moral stand.
to others, it is not. ex. if someone argues that he is the center of the universe, is he right or wrong? to you, he maybe lunatic saying to himself as the center of the universe..but in some sense, he is right. the center-ness of the universe always reside in the individual consciousness. the center of your universe is you, you can not escape that reality. the universe is as if having a one on one correspondence with you. the universe is seeing itself thru you. if you die, so the universe goes with you. what is the sense of this universe's beauty or grandeur if you die? it is nonsense for this universe's confirmation or affirmation of itself lies only thru you as the observer. in conclusion, do not be little the individual's perception of the universe when he says or humankind says it is in the center of the universe. the argument is not purely scientific but it is religious and philosophical. true, in this physical universe, we are not its center. very obvious, we need not to say that. let us just look at the mapped universe, we are not. it is isomorphic as to the present obervation. and even in our galaxy, we are at the edge. but the center-ness we are talking here is not only of physicality, it is a profound religious and philosophical issue as i stated already above. if you ask me if i am the center of the universe, yes, i am. i am the center of my universe as it relates to me..so you to..the center of the universe is you as it relates to you.


jayendecastro; I acknowledge the fact that mankind may know everything. I accept the constants. But i dont assert that it was set intentionally for life to exist.


that is not a complete exposition of the fine tuning theory or argument. it just states that the universe is finely tuned for life to emerge and evolve and later intelligent beings. 'intentionality' on the universe's part is just a religious, poetic, or theological add-in or flavor, however, of course, this is an another debate. it is a matter of perspective. to the religious, the fine tuned universe is God's making. it is the intentional making of God. what you failed to see in the fine tuning theory or argument is that the universe stands as finely tuned regardless of your beliefs.


jayendecastro;I asked about the other universe, i did not state or claim it as fact. I accept the constants, but not as fine-tuned. The multiverse is creatio ex materia, while the god concept and designer idea are creatio ex nihilo..

how do we even speak of a multiverse when we do not have evidence that it exists. do we have an empirical evidence or data? for the sake of speculation, this is tantamount to the GOD hypothesis. in an infinite possibilities, even the emergence or existence of God..now, why should you rule out the existence of God in the infinity of possibilities?i do not argue that there is a GOD..but from your logic on the possible existence of the multiverse does not rule out the logic of God in an infinity of space, time, and possibilities.i am also asking your numbers, equations, proofs...where are your mathematical statements disproving the fine tuning of the universe for life?do you even know the combinations on how simultaneously the DNA, RNA, ENZYMES, AMINO ACID, PROTEINS, GUANINE, CYTOCINE, ADENINE ETC ETC cooperate together just for the simplest and most primitive organism emerge? how could pure chance did this? and even digging further, these molecular structures were not living matter themselves..only by bizarre combinations that these molecular structures form life, and yet taken individually they themselves are not life..even digging deeper, these molecular structures were in fact atoms...and digging deeper, atoms are combinations of space, electrons, proton, neutrons...and digging deeper, leptons, muons, gluons. quarks....and digging deeper, there is the string...and digging deeper and so on, do you think this will end as long as there is an intelligence observing it?what we got here...it shows that there is no single irreducible matter..matter is just a matter of perspective. the atom itself is just a concept of smaller matter where this smaller matter is just a concept of smaller matter and so on until we come to think that these were just concepts or ideas that these were information that these informations were just the working of minds or ultimate mind/s observing.

Moral standard - my idea of what is right and wrong
Hostile - dangerous

Thats how i used those words therefore i dont see how my idea of right and wrong can affect how dangerous the universe is to life.

Moral standards, or my individual idea of it will mot change how the universe will affect me. Outerspace will not consider whether im good or bad. I will die ryt of the bat in space unless i'm equipped to be there.. astronauts cant just walk out of the ISS in their underpants and be okay. Thats why i say thay its hostile, moral standards is irrelevant in that manner. Intention is irrelevant as well as it is hostile in itself.

Creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materi are latin terms.. people used statements like that those are merely labels. Just so were clear, the parameters within the constants was the life permitting range that allowed life to exist.

Fine-tuning claims two things.
One is that a life-conducive universe exist. And second, that this kind of universe is improbable and changing such values will not allow life to exist.

First, is of course true. The second is yet to be proven unless there's definitive proof of what conditions under that of which life can exist. Again, if the conditions will be the same values on the first claim then such is just the observation of our current condition and not the paramaters in which we have to adhere to. The first is also a fact based on our current observation while the latter is a prediction on the same basis.

Rather than labeling it as "fine-tuned" ,why not just say that life in our universe exist and these are the values that add up and allowed it to happen.

And EXACTLY, life comes and goes as u said. Its a cycle. Life will exist, nature will do her thing and voila. Life and death. The conditions of our planet have radically changed over time, it will only allow the kind of life if permits or none at all. Thats not fine tuning, thats naturalism. Mankind may not be the endgame, even life.

Fine-tuning requires a degree of adjustments to certain parameters to allow life to eventually happen. If u can point out what conditions the universe had to adjust to and whats the basis of that condition them u can say its fine-tuned.

But if ur just gonna state the conditions in which we are observing, then like i said, its just an observation of what is and not what is supposed to be.

Claiming it as fine-tuned carries with it the idea of a tuner, whatevr that maybe. If u dont believe that there is one, then lets not call it fine-tuning, but merely observations of our current conditions.

But just so we're clear. And in light of open-mindedness, lets lay our cards.

Im an atheist. I dont believe that fine-tuning is a sound argument since it tends to assert the idea that life existed and can only exist because it was set to a certain range of standards to which it's parameters are merely an observation of what we have today. I reserve my belief on it until those criterias are met.

And your stand will be? Its tuned based on what? How was it tuned? By whom or none? What specific aspects of fine tuning are u more inclined to believe?


*Ang hahaba paliwanagan naten..hirap magkatime sagutin lahat ng dredretso...ahahahahaha

 

[jayendecastro]

Uy may taga silang..

 

[Ronron125]

Haha.. Hindi po kaya kayo ang hindi nag iisip.. You already beleive that there is a supreme being that created everything, without proff.. Wow napakagaling naman.
The scientist in order to prove his deduction he first needed to prove it in a scientific method. Ang the scientist theory is still a theory because it still not yet proven., or it lack of evidence. But in a Pastor, Including (God believers).. It only just a minute nakwento na agad on how our world created by god, bunos pa, ang galing mag kwento na parang nandun sila.. haha.. See whose lying? Whose stupid anyway?

 

[Powered by Pancit Canton]

Without proff? hindi pa ba proff ang mismong nilikha niya? At ang pagiging fine tuned nito na nagdudulot ng pag iral ng buhay at ng kaisipan?

 

[Ronron125]

Hindi.. Anung kalukuhang evidence mo na yan. Kahit saang korte di tatangapin yan.

 

[sanskuro]

Naniniwala ang korte sa diyos

 

[Ronron125]

Haha.. Ganun ba.. Ok. Lam mo ba kung bakit nagkaroon na ngayon ng korte na tagalitis, kasi ang fore runner talaga nyan ay ang Dei Indicum or Gods Judgement na ginagawa ng sina unang tao. To determine kung may kasalanan ka dati, ililitis ka sa pamamagitan ng Test by Eucharist (paiinumin ka ng lason, pag namatay ka guilty ka, acquited pag bumaba ang angel at pigilan ka sa pag inum. Ordeal by boiling water (may ipapakuha sayong bagay sa kumukulong tubig, after 3days pag walang sugat o paso ang braso mo acquited, guilty pag meron. At napakarami pang katarantaduhan paglilitis ang mga sinaunang tao. See.. During their time ganun ang ginagawa nila, dahil un sa paniniwala nila sa gawa gawang panginoon, baluktot na paniniwala na hangang ngayon daladala pa. Hays.

 

[jayendecastro]

Naniniwala ang korte sa diyos

Huh???

 

[Ronron125]

Best way to prove it.. Call your God! But sorry to say he will not come, he is just a fantasy created by scammers. in Catholic (tax free ang mga yan pag nilalabas nila ang collection sa donation, ang yaman ng mga pari sa batican ang sarap ng buhay) in Iglesia (hindi pa ganun katagal ang relegion na yan unlike catholic pero nakapag patayo na ng coliseum, pinakamalaki pa sa asia un) yaman diba. Wag kayong papabulag sa maling idealism bro, tingnan mo ang ibang klase ng muslim willing to sucide para lang sa pinapaniwalaan nila, maling doctrine ang nabuild up sa kanila. Pero bahala kayo sa buhay nyo kung papa uto parin kayo.

 

[sanskuro]

Mali ang paniniwalang muslim. Iba yan sa paniniwalang cristian

 

[Ronron125]

Yeah i agree.. But still it is madness to both religion to believe in someone who is just a fantasy.

 

[worldzero]

Sa dinami daming scientific discoveries and breakthrough, di parin lubos ma explain ang origin of life i.e. , how can a single-celled organism evolved into a complex human brain such as theirs and ours. Haha. How can everything fall exactly into place in the universe. If it's all a big bang of an accident.

 

[worldzero]

To believe in God-the OTG, you must first establish the validity and authenticity of the Bible. Dyan nagsisimula. That's the Word of God gumbaga. God-beathed writings ito for believers. I admit, yun yung challenge ko at first why i cannot fully believe in Jesus.
Research kayo. Yung walang bias. Hehe. You'll be surprised.

 

[PleaseInsertUsername]

Yeah naniniwala sila pero iba yung GOD na nasa isip nila kesa sa mga nasa isip ng normal. Yung sa kanila yun yung GOD na walang magic. puro talino lang ang gamit. What I mean is naniniwala sila na may GOD as advanced being. Nilikha nya tong Earth using advance science. ahaha nabasa ko lang XD

Nope. Pag ang mga doctor, siyestista at iba pang nasa field ng science na gumagamit ng salitang "It's a miracle" pertaining to things they can't understand nor they can't see how this happen cause it's very impossible, then they are acknowledging something that is "magical".

 

[PleaseInsertUsername]

Siguro wala pang 10 percent na scientist na naniwala kay God. Pero trivia ah. Most inventors or scientist yung known before are jewish. Like sila Albert Einstein

Actually malaking prosyento ng nasa field ng science ang may religious background.

 

[PleaseInsertUsername]

Water covers 70% of our planet, and it is easy to think that it will always be plentiful. However, freshwater—the stuff we drink, bathe in, irrigate our farm fields with—is incredibly rare. Only 3% of the world’s water is fresh water, and two-thirds of that is tucked away in frozen glaciers or otherwise unavailable for our use.

As a result, some 1.1 billion people worldwide lack access to water, and a total of 2.7 billion find water scarce for at least one month of the year. Inadequate sanitation is also a problem for 2.4 billion people—they are exposed to diseases, such as cholera and typhoid fever, and other water-borne illnesses. Two million people, mostly children, die each year from diarrheal diseases alone.

Many of the water systems that keep ecosystems thriving and feed a growing human population have become stressed. Rivers, lakes and aquifers are drying up or becoming too polluted to use. More than half the world’s wetlands have disappeared. Agriculture consumes more water than any other source and wastes much of that through inefficiencies. Climate change is altering patterns of weather and water around the world, causing shortages and droughts in some areas and floods in others.

At the current consumption rate, this situation will only get worse. By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortages. And ecosystems around the world will suffer even more.

Ganan ba fine-tuning?

Ganito ang fine tuning.

Nilikha nang Diyos na perpekto ang mundo. Then nagkaroon ng Tao. After nila kumain nung Fruit sa gitna ng Eden nagsimula na silang gawing tama ang mali. Naging imbentor sila Ng mga bagay na papatay sa kanila, sa mga hayop at sa kalikasan. Kagaya ng sasakyan mong dumadagdag sa problema nang global warming, na nagdadahilan sa pagkonti ng potabke water na pumapatay sa milyong milyong tao.

So saan ang fine tuning dyan? Sooner or later we will all gonna die. Religion and Science agreed that humanity will be extinct at some point.

What goes around comes around.

You added to that thing that cause ine person to lose his life, you will also lose something.

Simple.

 

[PleaseInsertUsername]

Haha.. Hindi po kaya kayo ang hindi nag iisip.. You already beleive that there is a supreme being that created everything, without proff.. Wow napakagaling naman.
The scientist in order to prove his deduction he first needed to prove it in a scientific method. Ang the scientist theory is still a theory because it still not yet proven., or it lack of evidence. But in a Pastor, Including (God believers).. It only just a minute nakwento na agad on how our world created by god, bunos pa, ang galing mag kwento na parang nandun sila.. haha.. See whose lying? Whose stupid anyway?

*Proof

Anyways, I know na troll ka. Pero sige papatulan Kita since gumamit ka Ng words na "lying" at "stupid" na parang ang talino mo.

Shall we begin?

1. You mention scientific method. You are right when you said na mapoproove ang isang bagay after ng scientific method. Now the "idea" at hand na pinaguusapan ay "creation" and "beginning".With that being said, Anung scientific research ang naconclude na ngayon na nagpapatunay about that creation? Big Bang Theory? No. Kasi theory padin yan. Evolution of Man? No kasi walang nakapagpatunay na nagmula tayo sa unggoy. Ni wala ngang fossil na makita. Ang meron lang ay ung "unggoy" at ung "tao", nasan ung mga nasa gitna? Di pa nahuhukay? O dahil Wala nmn talagang pwedeng hukayin. Magbigay ka Ng kahit ISA lang na naconclude na nang mga scientist about the origin of Life. Kahit ISA lang.

Kasi Kung Wala,ung mga "scientist" mo ang magiging "lying" kasi nagtuturo sila ng " theory" na sinasabi nilang "truth" at ikaw ay magiging "stupid" kasi naniniwala ka sa kanila.

 

[PleaseInsertUsername]

Haha.. Ganun ba.. Ok. Lam mo ba kung bakit nagkaroon na ngayon ng korte na tagalitis, kasi ang fore runner talaga nyan ay ang Dei Indicum or Gods Judgement na ginagawa ng sina unang tao. To determine kung may kasalanan ka dati, ililitis ka sa pamamagitan ng Test by Eucharist (paiinumin ka ng lason, pag namatay ka guilty ka, acquited pag bumaba ang angel at pigilan ka sa pag inum. Ordeal by boiling water (may ipapakuha sayong bagay sa kumukulong tubig, after 3days pag walang sugat o paso ang braso mo acquited, guilty pag meron. At napakarami pang katarantaduhan paglilitis ang mga sinaunang tao. See.. During their time ganun ang ginagawa nila, dahil un sa paniniwala nila sa gawa gawang panginoon, baluktot na paniniwala na hangang ngayon daladala pa. Hays.

San mo nmn natutunan yan? Nirerelate mo ba ung inhumane act nayan sa Faith at sa Diyos?

Well Kung magsisimula ka ng ganyan eh sige..papatulan kita.

Ung mga scientist noon ay gumagamit ng tao para sa research nila. Ilang tao naba ang namatay dahil sa science? Ilang tao naba ang pinaexperimentuhan? Libo-libo..baka nga milyon milyon pa.

Now. Kayong mga atheist. Baket antaas ng suicide rate sa hanay nyo? Bat andame sa inyo ang drug addict or alcohl and nicotine dependent? Bat malaking porsyento nyo ay battling depression and anxiety problem? Ilan pa sa inyo ang gagawa ng self harm sa future? Then you are contemplating that the world will be a better place without religion yet you are killing yourselves everyday.

Nasan ung "better" dyan?

Tapos tuturuan nyo ung iba to be like you. Hindi lang kayo suicidal, semi murderer pa.

 

[jayendecastro]

Ganito ang fine tuning.

Nilikha nang Diyos na perpekto ang mundo. Then nagkaroon ng Tao. After nila kumain nung Fruit sa gitna ng Eden nagsimula na silang gawing tama ang mali. Naging imbentor sila Ng mga bagay na papatay sa kanila, sa mga hayop at sa kalikasan. Kagaya ng sasakyan mong dumadagdag sa problema nang global warming, na nagdadahilan sa pagkonti ng potabke water na pumapatay sa milyong milyong tao.

So saan ang fine tuning dyan? Sooner or later we will all gonna die. Religion and Science agreed that humanity will be extinct at some point.

What goes around comes around.

You added to that thing that cause ine person to lose his life, you will also lose something.

Simple.

Wala sa mga sinabi mo ang fine tuning premise ..hahahaha

If god fine-tuned the universe..not just "mundo"...then if we as mere humans can alter it kaya ngkakaron kamo ng disasters then ang poor nman nf quality ng pagkakafine tune nea.

Extinction?? Then san na dun ang fine tuning for life if un din ang ending?

And pls... Natural disasters are by definition NATURAL... iba sa man made... Insert mo pa si adan at eba which doesnt make any sense