Moose Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 First, let's look at what you are reading right now. The ability to communicate simply by looking at, 'symbols' that can articulate my thoughts, feelings and opinions is an ability that only us humans have. How can that be, and why? Let's look at the universe next......look at how fine tuned it has to be for us to survive: (Resident scientists, feel free correct me if any of these are wrong) 1. strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry 2. weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible 3. gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form 4. electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry 5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements 6. ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above 7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above 8. expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed 9. entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form 10. mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements 11. velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support 12. age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed 13. initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space 14. average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit 15. density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material 16. average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life 17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun 18. decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life 19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life 20. ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above 21. decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry 22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes 23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation 24. polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result 25. supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form 26. white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry 27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form 28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result 29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result 30. mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense 31. big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form 32. size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result 33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable NOW....let's narrow it down a bit to our solar system. There are probabilty factors figured into these nuggets of information, (probability is based on most recent research), and you'll see why below: 1. galaxy size (p = 0.1) if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form 2. galaxy type (p = 0.1) if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistry if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form 3. galaxy location (p = 0.1) if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for life if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result 4. supernovae eruptions (p = 0.01) if too close: radiation would exterminate life if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form if too infrequent: same result if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form if too late: radiation would exterminate life 5. white dwarf binaries (p = 0.01) if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminated if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry 6. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry if closer: nebula would be blown apart 7. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption if earlier: nebula would be blown apart if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry 8. parent star distance from center of galaxy (p = 0.2) if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible 9. parent star distance from closest spiral arm (p = 0.1) if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets 10. z-axis range of star's orbit (p = 0.1) if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great 11. number of stars in the planetary system (p = 0.2) if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry 12. parent star birth date (p = 0.2) if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry 13. parent star age (p = 0.4) if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support if younger: same result 14. parent star mass (p = 0.001) if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis 15. parent star metallicity (p = 0.05) if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life 16. parent star color (p = 0.4) if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life if bluer: same result 17. H3+ production (p = 0.1) if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life 18. parent star luminosity (p = 0.0001) if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop 19. surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (p = 0.001) if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life 20. distance from parent star (p = 0.001) if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle 21. inclination of orbit (p = 0.5) if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too extreme for life 22. orbital eccentricity (p = 0.3) if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life 23. axial tilt (p = 0.3) if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms if lesser: same result 24. rate of change of axial tilt (p = 0.01) if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life 25. rotation period (p = 0.1) if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life 26. rate of change in rotation period (p = 0.05) if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too extreme for sustained life if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too slow for the development of advanced life 27. planet's age (p = 0.1) if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life 28. magnetic field (p = 0.01) if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar and stellar radiation 29. thickness of crust (p = 0.01) if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop 30. asteroid and comet collision rates (p = 0.1) if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements 31.mass of body colliding with primordial earth (0 = 0.002) if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role 32. timing of above collision (p = 0.05) if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be too luminous for subsequent life 33. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (p = 0.1) if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 34. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis 35. water vapor quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life 36. atmospheric electric discharge rate (p = 0.1) if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere 37. ozone quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life 38. oxygen quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe 39. seismic activity (p = 0.1) if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup 40. volcanic activity if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for life advanced life support if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged 41. rate of decline in tectonic activity (p = 0.1) if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life 42. rate of decline in volcanic activity (p = 0.1) if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for sustained land life if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life 43. oceans-to-continents ratio (p = 0.2) if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if smaller: same result 44. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (p = 0.1) if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive 45. distribution of continents (p = 0.3) if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life 46. frequency and extent of ice ages (p = 0.1) if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life. if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing 47. soil mineralization (p = 0.1) if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited if nutrient richer: same result 48. gravitational interaction with a moon (p = 0.1) if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation 49. Jupiter distance (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 50. Jupiter mass (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9 if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions 51. drift in (major) planet distances (p = 0.1) if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life 53. major planet orbital eccentricities (p = 0.05) if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone 54. major planet orbital instabilities (p = 0.1) if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone 55. atmospheric pressure (p = 0.1) if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface 56. atmospheric transparency (p = 0.01) if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support 57. chlorine quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.1) if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms 58. iron quantity in oceans and soils (p = 0.1) if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient if very small: no life would be possible 59. tropospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01) if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life 60. stratospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01) if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth 61. mesospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01) if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere if lesser: same result 62. frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (p = 0.01) if greater: advanced life would be impossible if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production 63. quantity of soil sulfur (p = 0.1) if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency 64. biomass to comet-infall ratio (p = 0.01) if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect 65. quantity of sulfur in planet's core (p = 0.1) if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field 66. quantity of sea-salt aerosols (p = 0.1) if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate 67. dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000) 68. longevity requirements (estimate .00001) Total Probability = 1:10 to the 99th power!! I can narrow it down alot further, and I plan on doing so, but this should be sufficient to explain some, (and I do mean some), reasons why and how I know God exists. I have a lot more to add, time has gotten away from me though, so I'll post more as this discussion progresses....... Link to post Share on other sites
Jinnah Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Total Probability = 1:10 to the 99th power!! I can narrow it down alot further, and I plan on doing so, but this should be sufficient to explain some, (and I do mean some), reasons why and how I know God exists. I have a lot more to add, time has gotten away from me though, so I'll post more as this discussion progresses....... Wow, this is great. Please post more when you have the time. This is the type of info. I like to read about... positive things about God. God sure is amazing, and as a mere human, I sometimes have trouble putting my thoughts into words due to external interruptions, but you did it perfectly. Link to post Share on other sites
Enema Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 I have a lot more to add, time has gotten away from me though, so I'll post more as this discussion progresses....... Time has gotten away from you? Sure, it's really hard to copy and paste work from other authors. Your entire post is ripped directly from: "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross. I'm not going to bother pasting one of the many arguments that trash the above claims. They're utterly ridiculous and don't deserve a response. I'm sure you blindly believe anything you read that supports the idea of your imaginary friend, regardless of the absurdity or evidence to the contrary. Link to post Share on other sites
Lizzie60 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 First off... God was Goddess... period. Link to post Share on other sites
Member3 Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 It took forever to get those big bang ripples just right. Man, that was a long night. Interesting side note: If you up the big bang ripples enough it starts to sound like Zeppelin. Link to post Share on other sites
Jinnah Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 I'm sure you blindly believe anything you read that supports the idea of your imaginary friend, regardless of the absurdity or evidence to the contrary. From your picture it looks like you are the one with the imaginary friend! (Sorry, I had to!) He put that on there for the sake of argument of another thread... my impression was that he wasn't trying to plagarize (sp - I know), but that he found a good argument somewhere and did some good summarizing at the end... no big deal... I like the statement made. It doesn't matter if he wrote it himself or not... it was the appropriate statement to make! Link to post Share on other sites
Jinnah Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 Time has gotten away from you? Sure, it's really hard to copy and paste work from other authors. Your entire post is ripped directly from: "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross. I'm not going to bother pasting one of the many arguments that trash the above claims. They're utterly ridiculous and don't deserve a response. I'm sure you blindly believe anything you read that supports the idea of your imaginary friend, regardless of the absurdity or evidence to the contrary. From your picture it looks like you are the one with the imaginary friend! (Sorry, I had to!) He put that on there for the sake of argument of another thread... my impression found a good argument somewhere and did some good summarizing at the end... no big deal... I like the statement made!! It doesn't matter if he wrote it himself or not... it was the appropriate statement to make! Link to post Share on other sites
nittygritty Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 According to the approximate estimates on the website below only 16% of the people in the World do not believe in any kind of God at all: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Figures, Religion is always trying to defend itself in any way it can, in this case why not fight fire with fire (science). When I finish my book, our descendents will read this book and say wow, there were a few intelligent people back then. As science progresses, religion keeps getting shoved further and further into a corner trying to defend their beliefs, so much they try to fuse their beliefs into pseudo religious ambiguity. Sure I believe the in the possibility a creator, but if so it's nothing like we were taught. Religion is outdated, gods are an archaic reminder of our primitive ancestry. Now, proceed at throwing stones. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 Time has gotten away from you?Yeah, what part of this do you not understand? I took the time to compile these factoids, arrange them accordinally to express my thoughts. I also took the time to, (as a good member of LS SHOULD), to break it down, highlight the main points. Also, the material isn't under any copy rights, (I'm not stupid). Isn't it respectful of a public forum to do so?Your entire post is ripped directly from: "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh RossHmmm. Good reference, but technically, you're wrong. If you want the direct link as to which I gathered some of this information from you can, "PM" me, and I'll be happy to share that with you.I'm not going to bother pasting one of the many arguments that trash the above claims. Then why did you even bother to post? This is one my biggest peeves...... I can respect that though, I'm guilty of blurting my immediate disgust as well. But I do expect you in here again......First off... God was Goddess... period. With all due respect.....if, "She" looks like your avatar.....well......nevermind!!!! But in response to that, we were made in God's, "image". Meaning that God isn't male, neither female. I don't have the refences handy to explain why God is referred to as, "He", or "Him", or, "The Son", But that's a good thread title!!It took forever to get those big bang ripples just right. Man, that was a long night. Interesting side note: If you up the big bang ripples enough it starts to sound like Zeppelin.Ok, "Jesus".....According to the approximate estimates on the website below only 16% of the people in the World do not believe in any kind of God at allNice!, BUT, be warned, and let's not be deceived....think about the resource(s), and how the study was administrated...... Link to post Share on other sites
Member2 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to formif smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements You people will never get the big bang theory unless you expand your horizons, Think out of the box as it were.The big bang occured after a long night of doing 'shrooms and being around some loose women.The ripples were nothing more than an overabundance of deuterium. Link to post Share on other sites
IpAncA Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Sure I believe the in the possibility a creator, but if so it's nothing like we were taught. What makes you think that? Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 You people will never get the big bang theory unless you expand your horizons, Think out of the box as it were.The big bang occured after a long night of doing 'shrooms and being around some loose women.The ripples were nothing more than an overabundance of deuterium.You and, "Jesus", should start a, "cult" somewhere.... Link to post Share on other sites
Author Moose Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 What makes you think that?He has a point. There is NO possible way to understand EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. Make sense? Link to post Share on other sites
Yosef Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Muahaha. Love it. I prefer to take the Natural approach for God's existance. His natural work on the world such as personality, being dead for 3 days and comming back alive (im NOT talking about jesus, mind you, these are current-time people), the beauty of Nature and how different people can absorb its presence, unfailing love that would otherwise be impossible in the world today, philosophy (given to us BY God FOR God's people, ask the Romans, they were smarter than us), and messages from God that tell us to do something for something in the future to happen, which when you do what he says, DOES happen, and many other events when I love. Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Shut up, Moose. Just shut up. You had me at the white dwarf binaries. Link to post Share on other sites
burning 4 revenge Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 First, let's look at what you are reading right now. The ability to communicate simply by looking at, 'symbols' that can articulate my thoughts, feelings and opinions is an ability that only us humans have. How can that be, and why? Let's look at the universe next......look at how fine tuned it has to be for us to survive: (Resident scientists, feel free correct me if any of these are wrong) 1. strong nuclear force constant if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry 2. weak nuclear force constant if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible 3. gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form 4. electromagnetic force constant if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry 5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements 6. ratio of electron to proton mass if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry if smaller: same as above 7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation if smaller: same as above 8. expansion rate of the universe if larger: no galaxies would form if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed 9. entropy level of the universe if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form 10. mass density of the universe if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements 11. velocity of light if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support 12. age of the universe if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed 13. initial uniformity of radiation if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space 14. average distance between galaxies if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit 15. density of galaxy cluster if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material 16. average distance between stars if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life 17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun 18. decay rate of protons if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life 19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life 20. ground state energy level for 4He if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life if smaller: same as above 21. decay rate of 8Be if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry 22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes 23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation 24. polarity of the water molecule if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result 25. supernovae eruptions if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form 26. white dwarf binaries if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry 27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form if smaller: no galaxies would form 28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible if smaller: same result 29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable if larger: same result 30. mass of the neutrino if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense 31. big bang ripples if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form 32. size of the relativistic dilation factor if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly if larger: same result 33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable NOW....let's narrow it down a bit to our solar system. There are probabilty factors figured into these nuggets of information, (probability is based on most recent research), and you'll see why below: 1. galaxy size (p = 0.1) if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form 2. galaxy type (p = 0.1) if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistry if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form 3. galaxy location (p = 0.1) if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for life if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result 4. supernovae eruptions (p = 0.01) if too close: radiation would exterminate life if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form if too infrequent: same result if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form if too late: radiation would exterminate life 5. white dwarf binaries (p = 0.01) if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminated if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry 6. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry if closer: nebula would be blown apart 7. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption if earlier: nebula would be blown apart if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry 8. parent star distance from center of galaxy (p = 0.2) if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible 9. parent star distance from closest spiral arm (p = 0.1) if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets 10. z-axis range of star's orbit (p = 0.1) if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great 11. number of stars in the planetary system (p = 0.2) if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry 12. parent star birth date (p = 0.2) if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry 13. parent star age (p = 0.4) if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support if younger: same result 14. parent star mass (p = 0.001) if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis 15. parent star metallicity (p = 0.05) if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life 16. parent star color (p = 0.4) if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life if bluer: same result 17. H3+ production (p = 0.1) if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life 18. parent star luminosity (p = 0.0001) if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop 19. surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (p = 0.001) if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life 20. distance from parent star (p = 0.001) if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle 21. inclination of orbit (p = 0.5) if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too extreme for life 22. orbital eccentricity (p = 0.3) if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life 23. axial tilt (p = 0.3) if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms if lesser: same result 24. rate of change of axial tilt (p = 0.01) if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life 25. rotation period (p = 0.1) if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life 26. rate of change in rotation period (p = 0.05) if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too extreme for sustained life if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too slow for the development of advanced life 27. planet's age (p = 0.1) if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life 28. magnetic field (p = 0.01) if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar and stellar radiation 29. thickness of crust (p = 0.01) if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (9) (p = 0.1) if greater: runaway glaciation would develop if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop 30. asteroid and comet collision rates (p = 0.1) if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements 31.mass of body colliding with primordial earth (0 = 0.002) if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role 32. timing of above collision (p = 0.05) if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be too luminous for subsequent life 33. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (p = 0.1) if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 34. carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis 35. water vapor quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life 36. atmospheric electric discharge rate (p = 0.1) if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere 37. ozone quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life 38. oxygen quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01) if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe 39. seismic activity (p = 0.1) if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup 40. volcanic activity if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for life advanced life support if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged 41. rate of decline in tectonic activity (p = 0.1) if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life 42. rate of decline in volcanic activity (p = 0.1) if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for sustained land life if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life 43. oceans-to-continents ratio (p = 0.2) if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited if smaller: same result 44. rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (p = 0.1) if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive 45. distribution of continents (p = 0.3) if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life 46. frequency and extent of ice ages (p = 0.1) if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life. if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing 47. soil mineralization (p = 0.1) if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited if nutrient richer: same result 48. gravitational interaction with a moon (p = 0.1) if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation 49. Jupiter distance (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 50. Jupiter mass (p = 0.1) if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9 if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions 51. drift in (major) planet distances (p = 0.1) if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life 53. major planet orbital eccentricities (p = 0.05) if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone 54. major planet orbital instabilities (p = 0.1) if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone 55. atmospheric pressure (p = 0.1) if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface 56. atmospheric transparency (p = 0.01) if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support 57. chlorine quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.1) if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms 58. iron quantity in oceans and soils (p = 0.1) if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient if very small: no life would be possible 59. tropospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01) if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life 60. stratospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01) if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth 61. mesospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01) if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere if lesser: same result 62. frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (p = 0.01) if greater: advanced life would be impossible if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production 63. quantity of soil sulfur (p = 0.1) if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency 64. biomass to comet-infall ratio (p = 0.01) if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect 65. quantity of sulfur in planet's core (p = 0.1) if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field 66. quantity of sea-salt aerosols (p = 0.1) if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate 67. dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000) 68. longevity requirements (estimate .00001) Total Probability = 1:10 to the 99th power!! I can narrow it down alot further, and I plan on doing so, but this should be sufficient to explain some, (and I do mean some), reasons why and how I know God exists. I have a lot more to add, time has gotten away from me though, so I'll post more as this discussion progresses....... so god is physics? that says nothing of a personal, benevolent god, all it does is list things that exist. it doesnt list all of the things that don't exist. what does that prove? Link to post Share on other sites
Juan Kerr Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 A personal, benevolent God would have intervened already and shortened the original post in this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
burning 4 revenge Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 A personal, benevolent God would have intervened already and shortened the original post in this thread. is this the fifth incarnation of ruby gloom? Link to post Share on other sites
wwjd Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 god doesn't exist. if he did, he would never have created painful abominations, like b4r. Link to post Share on other sites
nocturnal_kiss Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 A personal, benevolent God would have intervened already and shortened the original post in this thread. And He would have prevented the poster above from quoting the entire thing again. But that doesn't rule out a God with a sick sense of humo(u)r. Oh, that was burning who did that...Satan may play a larger role in this than we realize... Link to post Share on other sites
Quinch Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I fail to see how the OPs statement of facts proves anything. You could use the same argument to prove the existence of the tooth fairy. Sorry OP, you've wasted your time here. Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 According to the approximate estimates on the website below only 16% of the people in the World do not believe in any kind of God at all: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html Which means 84% of the worlds population have conflicting views. They can't ALL be right. The OP was a nice try, but you really can't prove the existence of a god like that, its a total paradox to use "physics" to prove the existence of a god!!! Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I feel I should step in and give the OP a quick reminder on probabilities, since his initial estimates are a little astray. The odds for the universe being exactly the way it is are: 1:1 Thank you and goodnight. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Erased Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I think we all need something to believe in. If you believe in God then that's great. If you don't, then you have your own views to believe in. We will never have 100% of the worlds population believe in one God, or that there is no God and we are all here because of some cosmic accident or whatever. So why waste your time trying to sway others opinions when it pointless? The undeniable fact is no-one can be absolutely positive they are right because we simply do not know. Big Bang/Evolution can be explained as how God created the Earth/Universe, or it happened naturally. Many different facets to the argument, but it still comes down to the point that simply we won't know until we die. If there is a heaven, then gloat, if there isn't... well then you can't do much cos you don't exist lol. Very much an agree to disagree policy to be adopted I would think. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts