Evidence of God's existence

[Eljah702]

hi all

i would like to point out following evidence, that God exists :

1) Ontological -

P1. God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable.
P2. God exists in the mind.
P3. To exist in reality and in the mind is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
C: Therefor God must exist in reality as well as the mind; if God did not, then God would not be the greatest being conceivable.

2) Moral -

P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values exist.
C: Therefor God exists.
3) Teleological (Design) -
P1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
C1: Therefor, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
P2. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
C2: Therefor, God exists.

4) Cosmological (Kalaam) -

P1. Everything that "begins" to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

5) Contingency -

"Holds that God is the best explanation of why anything at all exists, rather than nothing."

6) Personal Experience -

"In the same way that one can know that the external world exists or that the past is real, one can know that God exists in that same sort of immediate non-inferential way."

 

[Haruspex]

Oh **** off mate!

 

[RavenRockstar]

hi all
i would like to point out following evidence, that God exists :
1) Ontological -
P1. God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable.
P2. God exists in the mind.
P3. To exist in reality and in the mind is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
C: Therefor God must exist in reality as well as the mind; if God did not, then God would not be the greatest being conceivable. ."

This is rather faulty logic. For one, I can say Spock is the greatest being conceivable, but that doesn't make it true. And for another, you cant say that since something is "the greatest being conceivable", that it must exist in relaity as well as in the mind. "the greatest being conceivable" means that its the greatest being imaginable. In the MIND.

2) Moral -
P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values exist.
C: Therefor God exists.

Says who? Why can't morals exist without god? Why can't people be trusted to look at a situation and decide what they think is "good"?

3) Teleological (Design) -
P1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
C1: Therefor, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
P2. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
C2: Therefor, God exists.

How do you know? Were you there when everything formed? Can you define what is done too well to occur without intervention?
And think about this. Somewhere or another, a female invented something. Anything, you can pick. I am a female. Therefore, I invented it. Doesn't quite work that way, does it?

5) Contingency -
"Holds that God is the best explanation of why anything at all exists, rather than nothing."

Just because something is the best, or simplest, answer, doesn't mean it's the only one.

 

[Eljah702]

Says who? Why can't morals exist without god? Why can't people be trusted to look at a situation and decide what they think is "good"?

The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.

In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind doesﾂ―rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.

How do you know? Were you there when everything formed? Can you define what is done too well to occur without intervention?

Sure. The fine tuning of the universe, for example.

In 1973, astronomer and cosmologist Brandon Carter (Carter 1974) delivered a lecture in which he announced an exciting new discovery: the fundamental constants of the physical world must have been very delicately fine-tuned in order to make life possible. Since that time, literally dozens of such remarkable coincidences have been discovered, the so-called "anthropic coincidences". ("Anthropic" is a Greek word meaning "tending to bring about the existence of human beings.")


Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
ﾂ"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.ﾂ"

George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
ﾂ"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ﾂ'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.ﾂ"

Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
ﾂ"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.ﾂ"

 

[Haruspex]

The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.

There is no normative morality. A person is only limited by capacity, and capacity to perpetrate a morally reprehensible (viewed from a societal perspective) act, coupled with the desire to do so and a lack of abhorrence immediately means that an individual did not appeal to any set of normative ethics. In other words, it is not universal.

In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does―rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

Lions, whenever and however raised, will share certain characteristics and forms of behaviour. It is instinct.

To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.

I do not instinctively know anything to be true, and quite honestly, anyone who believes to hold knowledge stemming purely from instinct alone (not justified true belief, merely belief) does not possess the knowledge he or she claims to possess.

All in all, your assessment rests on the acceptance of certain premises which are unsupported by evidence altogether, when in fact, you are the one making positive claims, so the burden of proof lies clearly with you.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I'm pretty sure I won't be the last to comment in this thread and I can see this degrading pretty quickly IMO. I didn't know people still held on to these arguments, so I'm a little wary to bring up counterpoints (trolls do exist), but here goes.

hi all

i would like to point out following evidence, that God exists :

1) Ontological -

P1. God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable.
P2. God exists in the mind.
P3. To exist in reality and in the mind is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
C: Therefor God must exist in reality as well as the mind; if God did not, then God would not be the greatest being conceivable.

RavenRockstar pointed this out, but I'll put my two cents in.

P1. Unicorns are, by definition, the most majestic beings conceivable.
P2. Unicorns exist in the mind.
P3. To exist in reality and in the mind is more majestic than to exist in the mind alone.
C: Therefore unicorns must exist in reality as well as the mind; if unicorns did not, then unicorns would not be the most majestic beings conceivable.

You can use this argument to "prove" the existence of anything. You haven't really proven anything and you have assumed a lot of things. For example, can you demonstrate that it is "greater" to exist in reality and the mind? What do you even mean by "greater"? Just because something exists in your mind doesn't make it real. Thoughts are abstract and not concrete.

2) Moral -

P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values exist.
C: Therefor God exists.

Again, you are assuming certain points to be true. Just because you assert something doesn't make it true. How do you know that objective moral values exist? Because everyone "knows" what right and wrong is? Do toddlers or babies know? Do mass murderers know? How about, our societies make it "wrong" to kill, steal, cheat, etc. because all of those qualities are not beneficial to society? In times of anarchy moral values can quickly go out the window, just look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. So until you assert that objective moral values are evidence for God, you must first prove that they do indeed exist. As a side note, if you are talking about the Christian God, his morals are certainly not objective, just look at how they change from the Old Testament to the New.

3) Teleological (Design) -
P1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
C1: Therefor, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
P2. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
C2: Therefor, God exists.

Man is also a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being. Does that mean we created the universe? Can you demonstrate that complexity necessitates a God? I think I know what argument you might use, but if you are thinking of the watchmaker or painting one, don't bother. After all, if complexity necessitates a God, how come you don't see perfect circles in nature, the simplest geometric shape? Beauty is subjective, so to say that something is "too beautiful" or "too complex" to have happened by accident you are making subjective statements.

4) Cosmological (Kalaam) -

P1. Everything that "begins" to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

How do you know the universe began to exist? Did God begin to exist? If God didn't begin to exist, why couldn't the universe also not begin to exist? Cause and effect is a property we observe around us caused basically by energy exchange, but cause and effect might not necessarily be a property of the universe.

5) Contingency -

"Holds that God is the best explanation of why anything at all exists, rather than nothing."

6) Personal Experience -

"In the same way that one can know that the external world exists or that the past is real, one can know that God exists in that same sort of immediate non-inferential way."

How is God the best explanation? You must demonstrate that first. You can know the external world exists by making direct observations, but even then you are at the mercy of your senses which can and do deceive you. What do you mean by, "the past is real"? That it happened or that it still exists? You do realize that memories are easily forgotten/fabricated? When you say that knowing the world exists means we can know God exists you are comparing apples to oranges. I can demonstrate the world exists or that the past happened, but I cannot do the same with God. Let me rephrase your point:

"In the same way that one can know that the external world exists or that the past is real, one can know that Big Foot exists in that same sort of immediate non-inferential way."

See how it's all just fluff and doesn't prove anything?

In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's.

You do realize there is a tribe/s in the Amazon that bury their children alive as part of a ritual? Is that moral objectivity?

Sure. The fine tuning of the universe, for example.

I'm sorry, but this is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Do you even know what physical constants they are referring to or do you just copy and paste arguments? By how much would we have to change the constants? Can you demonstrate that if we changed the "physical constants" that life could not arise under those new conditions? If the universe is fine-tuned then why is Earth the only known place in the universe to have the capacity to harbor life? Put a human on any other planet in the solar system or any other planet that we have discovered and you wouldn't last more than a few seconds. The universe is a very violent place with death around every corner from gamma ray bursts, solar flares, black holes, or supernovae. The fish in the pond is saying, "Gee, how lucky I am that this pond is perfectly suitable for me to live in!" while the fish in the desert is saying nothing because he is dead.

 

[Eljah702]

There is no normative morality. A person is only limited by capacity, and capacity to perpetrate a morally reprehensible (viewed from a societal perspective) act, coupled with the desire to do so and a lack of abhorrence immediately means that an individual did not appeal to any set of normative ethics. In other words, it is not universal.

We are not maintaining, let it be noted, that the moral law possesses no power in men's lives apart from a religious sanction. What we do maintain is that only religious belief renders the existence of the moral dimension understandable. It alone can explain what transpires in that area of human experience. Apart from belief in God, the moral order is an impenetrable mystery.

Lions, whenever and however raised, will share certain characteristics and forms of behaviour. It is instinct.

sure. so what does instinct have to do with morality ?

All in all, your assessment rests on the acceptance of certain premises which are unsupported by evidence altogether, when in fact, you are the one making positive claims, so the burden of proof lies clearly with you.

since i do not make conclusive assertions, i do not have anything to prove.

 

[Hezam]

Eljah702 i advise you to avoid such topics like this,we had a big deal about God...and we ended up disagreed.

Defel-san,you are doing a good job instead of the Satan
Satan is really thankful
it's boring to have only Angels around,right?

 

[Mycernius]

Oh dear, another one. Let us have a look at this so called evidence

hi all

i would like to point out following evidence, that God exists :

Fail before the first hurdle.
Which god? I suppose that you mean the magical sky fairy that the christians worship. Why must it be yours, why not Allah, Brahma or even Zeus? You already have a bias.

1) Ontological -

P1. God is, by definition, the greatest being conceivable.
P2. God exists in the mind.
P3. To exist in reality and in the mind is greater than to exist in the mind alone.
C: Therefor God must exist in reality as well as the mind; if God did not, then God would not be the greatest being conceivable.

debunked on mso many levels and so many times, even by members who have posted before them. Just remove god and replace with Zeus, Allah, Brahma, or the Invisdible Pink Unicorn.
The we gio through each point:
Number one is a blind assertion. Have you any evidence that god is the greatest being conceivable? In your mind yes, but not to me or many who do not follow or worship your bronze age deity.
Number two. If god exists in the mind then it is imaginary. Unicorns exist in peoples mind, doesn't mean they exist.
Number three: Yet another blind assertion with no evidence
Number four a flawed conclusion from a flawed argument. There fore it can be rejected.
Even leading theologians have rejected this argument including Thomas Aquinas

2) Moral -

P1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values exist.
C: Therefor God exists.

Again which god?
Morals do not come from any god, they come from the society you live in. Christian god had no problem with slavery, genocide, beating of women. No where in the bible does it mention that chlid abuse is wrong. Even the so called ten commandments miss out rape, and child abuse. Did your god not think that a moral society should have these rules laid down?
I would also like to point out that certain orals that exist in our society can be seen within social animals. Chimpanzees know that killing each other is wrong, an observed fact. Thye will naturally look after children within their own group, and have even protected human children. this is also seen in Meerkats and other social animals.

3) Teleological (Design) -
P1. X is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful or beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
C1: Therefor, X must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
P2. God is a sentient, intelligent, wise, or purposeful being.
C2: Therefor, God exists.

Oh dear ID. I'm sorry, but Ken Ham and all his cromies are liars. A snow drop has a symetrical design, yet is the product on nature. Nothing has designed it, it happens naturally. Plus there is so much wrong with humans. We have an appendix that might, at any time, become infected and kill us. Because we walk upright we suffer from circulation problem, especially in women because of the reproductive system pressing down causing poor irculation to the legs.. We have redundant bit such as the appendix and 5the tail bone. We are not the only animal to have redundant parts. Whales have a pelvis bone, insects and fish living in permanently dark conditions have the remains of eyes.
If life was designed a designer wouldn't have put this mistakes in, unless it was incompetant, which makes your god either incompetant or does not exist.

4) Cosmological (Kalaam) -

P1. Everything that "begins" to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Why? Plus why should that cause be a god. Currentl quantum models suggest that it was a collision of superstrings and that universes are being created all the time, each with different properties than this one. We just happen to live in one that gives us stars.

5) Contingency -

"Holds that God is the best explanation of why anything at all exists, rather than nothing."

God is not the best argument that the universe exists. There are much more robust ideas than a magic man magiked it all into being.

6) Personal Experience -

"In the same way that one can know that the external world exists or that the past is real, one can know that God exists in that same sort of immediate non-inferential way."

Personal experince is a piece of flawed logic and is not considered evidence by any sensible scientists or philospher.

Now what I want you to do is find out what really constitutes evidence. Peer reviewed papers might be a good start. Show us that this magic sky daddy is your particular sky daddy and not a hindus, or a jains. Shows us one little piece of EVIDENCE, not arguments that have been debunked time and time again, but real evidence of gods existance.

 

[Eljah702]

If the universe is fine-tuned then why is Earth the only known place in the universe to have the capacity to harbor life?

Why the Universe is so large

The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question 'why is our Universe so big?' The emergence of human life here on Earth has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.

The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.

This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn't have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it. The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it's a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
This may seem a regression to an ancient 'anthropocentric' perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus's revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn't take Copernican modesty (some-times called the 'principle of mediocrity') too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn't surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Your logic is faulty. You can't use logic to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

"After all, if complexity necessitates a God, how come you don't see perfect circles in nature, the simplest geometric shape?"

More fundamentally, if complexity necessitates a God (or a Creator), then who created God?

 

[RavenRockstar]

You should seriously stop with the copy-and-paste jobs. They kind of make it seem like you've no idea what you're talking about.
You probably shouldn't make posts dedicated to trying to force people to adopt your beliefs when you can't defend them.
Or better yet, don't make them at all.

 

[Eljah702]

Currentl quantum models suggest that it was a collision of superstrings and that universes are being created all the time, each with different properties than this one. We just happen to live in one that gives us stars.
.

String theory suffers from two major problems. The first problem is that, as with any current theory of quantum gravity, it does not yet make any firm predictions that are currently subject to experimental verification. There do exist certain models, such as the braneworlds , that could lead to observation of stringy behavior in the next decade, but this is not required by string theory, only allowed. Other possibilities include cosmological observations that may reflect stringy physics. Finally, one cannot discount that other possibilities may arise in the future. Nonetheless, while these possibilities for confirmation, however remote, do exist, as things now stand string theory can not be disproven by experiment, which is a serious problem for any theory of physics.

The second problem is that much of theory is still only formulated perturbatively (as a series of approximations rather than as an exact solution). While much progress has been made in nonperturbative techniques including conjectured complete definitions in space-times satisfying certain asymptotics, a full nonperturbative definition of the theory is still lacking.

 

[Eljah702]

Your logic is faulty. You can't use logic to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

"After all, if complexity necessitates a God, how come you don't see perfect circles in nature, the simplest geometric shape?"

More fundamentally, if complexity necessitates a God (or a Creator), then who created God?

see the youtube video :

Ultimate proof God exists

1,1,2,3,5,8 are the Fibonacci number which are in Design of Architecture and nature, the Fibonacci's scale in Design of nature are sign of intellegent being (A Creator)

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Here's some real logic:

Assumption: Complexity requires a creator.

Assumption: God is complex.

Conclusion: God must have a creator.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Why the Universe is so large
The tremendous timespans involved in biological evolution offer a new perspective on the question 'why is our Universe so big?' The emergence of human life here on Earth has taken 4.5 billion years. Even before our Sun and its planets could form, earlier stars must have transmuted pristine hydrogen into carbon, oxygen and the other atoms of the periodic table. This has taken about ten billion years. The size of the observable Universe is, roughly, the distance travelled by light since the Big Bang, and so the present visible Universe must be around ten billion light-years across.
The galaxy pair NGC 6872 and IC 4970 indicate the vastness of the Universe. Light from the bright foreground star has taken a few centuries to reach us; the light from the galaxies has been travelling for 300 million years. The Universe must be this big - as measured by the cosmic number N - to give intelligent life time to evolve. In addition, the cosmic numbers omega and Q must have just the right values for galaxies to form at all.
This is a startling conclusion. The very hugeness of our Universe, which seems at first to signify how unimportant we are in the cosmic scheme, is actually entailed by our existence! This is not to say that there couldn't have been a smaller universe, only that we could not have existed in it. The expanse of cosmic space is not an extravagant superiority; it's a consequence of the prolonged chain of events, extending back before our Solar System formed, that preceded our arrival on the scene.
This may seem a regression to an ancient 'anthropocentric' perspective - something that was shattered by Copernicus's revelation that the Earth moves around the Sun rather than vice versa. But we shouldn't take Copernican modesty (some-times called the 'principle of mediocrity') too far. Creatures like us require special conditions to have evolved, so our perspective is bound to be in some sense atypical. The vastness of our universe shouldn't surprise us, even though we may still seek a deeper explanation for its distinctive features.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that it has taken 10 billion years for stars to form heavier elements and the universe is also 10 billion years old so therefore since these numbers are the same it points to fine-tuning? You should check your numbers, however. The universe is commonly believed to be around 13.5-14 billion years old, not 10 billion. What would be more impressive to me is if the Earth AND the universe had the same age, then you would have a stronger case for some intelligent fine-tuning. It certainly doesn't take 10 billion years for planets to form around stars since planets have been discovered orbiting stars that are much older than ours.

I'm not even sure if you read what you posted, because the last bit of it seems to sum up the "fine-tuning" idea perfectly. It's a subjective anthropomorphism. How can you objectively say anything about changing a physical constant? I can change the gravitational physical constant by very tiny increments and see no change at all. You might say that is only a small change, but that is a completely subjective statement. A whale is big to me but is tiny compared to the Earth. Moreover, we don't even know all the physical constants in the universe, how they are related to each other, or even that there is only one universe. There could be multiple universes each with different random physical constants and only where those physical constants support any intelligent life will there be intelligent life to argue over the fine-tuning when in reality there are an infinite number of universes that don't support life.

If you want solid evidence, work has been done to see if the physical constants really do have to be fine-tuned to get our universe.

[0807.3697] Stars In Other Universes: Stellar structure with different fundamental constants
This paper shows that by tweaking the fundamental constants in star formation roughly a quarter of the changed parameters still allowed star formation.

[hep-ph/0604027] A Universe Without Weak Interactions
This paper shows that the universe could have formed along with stars and the heavier elements without the weak interaction, one of the four fundamental forces.

And you still have yet to answer why, if the universe was fine-tuned for our existence, it is so inhospitable.

 

[master-ling]

Thanks for feeding the troll guys!

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

What troll? We're having an interesting conversation among ourselves.

Anything to contribute?

 

[Eljah702]

If you want solid evidence, work has been done to see if the physical constants really do have to be fine-tuned to get our universe.
.

This work has been done already. More than 120 fine-tune constants are known up to date, and more are discovered all the time.
Science has no doubt that the universe is finely tuned to life, and the constants are known as well. The question is not if, but how it came to be tuned to life.

Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
ﾂ"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.ﾂ"


Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
ﾂ"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ﾂ'common wisdom'.ﾂ"


Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
ﾂ"It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.ﾂ"


Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
ﾂ"The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ﾂ'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan.ﾂ"


Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
ﾂ"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.ﾂ"

 

[Half-n-Half]

Thanks for feeding the troll guys!

You're welcome!

This work has been done already. More than 120 fine-tune constants are known up to date, and more are discovered all the time.
Science has no doubt that the universe is finely tuned to life, and the constants are known as well. The question is not if, but how it came to be tuned to life.

Yes, the work has been done, as evidenced in the links I posted. I Guess you ignored/didn't read them but they showed that there are fundamental constants about the universe that can be changed or deleted all together and you would still get our universe. And science can't say anything about the universe being fine-tuned to life; in that regard it is blind, deaf, and dumb. Those are subjective statements made by man to make sense or meaning of his existence. Also, quoting scientists like you would scripture doesn't help your case at all. For every one of those people I could find someone who has said the exact opposite.

 

[Hezam]

Guys,there is no answer untill we know who created us.

 

[Mycernius]

For anyone interested his copy and paste job on post #10 is from a book by Martin Rees called Just Six Numbers.

@Eljah702 you have been offically warned aginst posting from copyrighted material without a link do not do it again without a link and source.

This work has been done already. More than 120 fine-tune constants are known up to date, and more are discovered all the time.
Science has no doubt that the universe is finely tuned to life, and the constants are known as well. The question is not if, but how it came to be tuned to life.
Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
ﾂ"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.ﾂ"
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
ﾂ"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ﾂ'common wisdom'.ﾂ"
Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
ﾂ"It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.ﾂ"
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
ﾂ"The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ﾂ'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan.ﾂ"
Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
ﾂ"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.ﾂ"

Appeal to Authority. You Fail.

 

[Eljah702]

For anyone interested his copy and paste job on post #10 is from a book by Martin Rees called Just Six Numbers.
@Eljah702 you have been offically warned aginst posting from copyrighted material without a link do not do it again without a link and source.
Appeal to Authority. You Fail.

i am a recent member, and if the moderator sets my account free, i will post the source, without any problem.

 

[Haruspex]

i am a recent member, and if the moderator sets my account free, i will post the source, without any problem.

What is, currently, stopping you from disclosing your sources?

 

[Eljah702]

What is, currently, stopping you from disclosing your sources?

i am getting this message :

You do not have enough posts yet to add URLs to third-party websites.