paloalto on 14/1/2007 at 05:20
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
The elements are an emergent feature of the universe, arising from the specific combination of fundamental constants we have, the geometry of the universe, and the basic rules about what particles do (relativity or quantum mechanics or string theory or whatever). I expect if you could fiddle with the fundamental constants or the rules, a small change would get you a universe with (mostly) quite similar chemistry. Bigger changes might get you a noticably different periodic table, and perhaps states other than the usual solid/liquid/gas would be more/less common too. But since there's someone here to do this thinking, the universe has to have rules and constants that allow intelligent life to exist. This tells you nothing about <em>why</em> the universe has that particular configuration, or whether there are a whole bunch of other universes with different configurations that we can't get at, in which no one is discussing the origin of the universe because there isn't an element that behaves anything like carbon, or the whole thing is a great big Bose-Einstein condensate. Maybe there are even some where an intelligent species is remarking upon the configuration that's just right for the complicated chemicals <em>they're</em> built from.
I don't think that heat and pressure created the finobacci series and the golden ratio.They are,(heat and pressure) mechanical dumb processes.It is more like a medium which fills in a predesigned pattern.You want an actor without a script or a script writer.Again any example of personal creation I can think of takes intent ,desire,and the application of intelligence.It is the only constant law I know of in order to create as observed by my senses.Logic to me would dictate that this must be extrapolated to any evidence of creation.Matter has none of these things of itself.And I suppose the process itself could be called Love in the highest sense of the word.
And the no evidence for God position based on no sensory data I will bieleve if it can be proven that our senses have an infinite level of detection.Which we know is absurd since man has created mechanical devices which extend the range of his sensory input.
Pyrian on 14/1/2007 at 08:21
Quote Posted by Kolya
Has the question whether god exists been solved yet?
Yes. It doesn't, or at least not in any form that's both meaningful and recognizable as a God.
Josh68 on 14/1/2007 at 09:29
More accurately, the God we are looking for actually wouldn't be a God at all, just a hero figure or a legend. The real God is indecipherable by nature.
PigLick on 14/1/2007 at 11:52
this is the shittest 7 page thread ever. Not even any drama. I want entertainment damn you, not thinking.
PigLick on 14/1/2007 at 11:52
ENTERTAINMENT....!
Selkie on 14/1/2007 at 12:30
So far the best I've gotten out of this little mud-slinging act is (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#Image_gallery_of_a_zoom_sequence) some seriously funky desktop backgrounds courtesy of someone's post about Mandelbrot sets. So now we can all take something meaningful away from this sorry excuse for a thread. :D
Once again TTLG comes through where it really
matters! :thumb:
OrbWeaver on 14/1/2007 at 13:00
Anyone who is interested in
The God Delusion and hasn't already seen the video of Dawkin's reading in Lynchburg can view it here:
(
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8033327978006186584)
The questions from "students" at Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University" are particular entertaining, as they try repeatedly to outwit Dawkins and fall flat on their faces.
Josh68 on 14/1/2007 at 13:14
Quote Posted by Selkie
So now we can all take something meaningful away from this sorry excuse for a thread. :D
I submit that you are a sorry excuse for a forumgoer. There have been some very intelligent posts in this thread, but I suppose you didn't even read them.
Vigil on 14/1/2007 at 13:41
I'm actually agreeing with Josh68. This thread has turned pretty good from its ugly-duckling beginnings.
Thirith on 14/1/2007 at 14:18
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
And I don't see how you can accuse me of arrogance either to be honest, your assertion that atheism cannot give you the level of comfort that faith can is every bit as arrogant if not moreso.
I can accuse you of arrogance quite easily, for the reasons given earlier in this thread as well as by others. I can also accuse you of not reading other people's posts very well - I never said that atheism couldn't give me that level of comfort, I simply said that if faith is working out for me (and so far it is), what reason would I have to change to something that may or may not give me the level of comfort I am seeking? Also, even if I had said that atheism can't comfort me, I'm sure that if you're honest you'd have to admit it's more arrogant to assume things about others than about oneself.
