Does god EXIST?

[El Presidente]

it is one of the strongest explanations we have to explain existence & our apparently fine tuned universe.
.

I am staggered at how you came to that conclusion.

The universe is not fine tuned, it is changing all the time, it's just that our impatience blinds us to long term scientific concepts.

 

[teaboy]

If you look at the fundamental laws that define the universe, surely you would come to the same conclusion.

For example, if gravity was even fractionally stronger or weaker, the planets wouldn't form. If the laws of thermodynamics did not exist, we would have no sun, nor would we be able to make fire. Life would not exist. Electromagnetism, nuclear attraction, time, relativity, the range of elements that we know as the periodic table - from oxygen to carbon to radium (all have unique but vital properties for life's survival) - Why do all of these exist? Would we exist without them? What defines these specific but crucial laws? These are just some of many factors to consider when contemplating our fine-tuned universe.

Is it worth me highlighting how specific, yet vital, the laws of life and evolution are too?

You seem to be under the misconception that life can ONLY exist in it's current form, and ONLY in a universe in it's current form. What are you basing this on? You also seem to miss that these 'Laws' are discoveries about the universe. If something different is discovered, the law may change (as long as theycontinue to back up what is already known too) - that's science. There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff.

The universe is not particularly 'finely-tuned', especially at a Quantum level.

 

[teaboy]

It would be a misconception if there were reason to believe otherwise. We are carbon based life forms because carbon is the perfect biological building block for life, just as water and oxygen are perfect for biological reactions. Perfection. There is sci-fi speculation of silicon based lifeforms with a diet of rocks, but it really is just sci-fi. All we have to go by at this current time is our planet, which is absolutely oozing with all types of life from every orifice, yet the stars in our immediate vicinity are apparently empty - silence in every direction - and the seemingly habitable planets that we are currently exploring such as Mars are also apparently lifeless. So perhaps it's you who is under the misconception...

Quantum theory is essentially looking inside the programming of our universe and it seems the more we learn, the more scientists and philosophers alike need to ask further questions as to what life & reality really is... Discoveries such as the uncertainty principle has certainly thrown everything we thought we knew up in the air.

Why apply reason to your argument at this point? The universe, our planet and life SEEMS perfect because that is how it would look whatever the molecular construction. Just because it is 'perfect' (your word, I don't actually agree that it is) to support life AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS doesn't mean that it's the ONLY system that is capable of supporting life-forms. To suggest that because a tiny minority of solar systems in our galaxy don't currently support life does not mean that others can't, or that solar systems in other galaxies can't either is far to geocentric an argument for the wider universe!

I agree about Quantum theory - bloody witchcraft if you ask me!

 

[Silk]

Out of the countless rules, laws and behaviours of our universe , and life itself, it is almost impossible to find any at all that does not serve some kind of purpose, apparently assisting or being absolutely vital for the existence of life.

However if there is a "reason" for existence, it's clear that the importance doesn't lie on an individual level, as is evident with the immense levels of suffering that is and has always been.

Personally I view the universe as largely inhospitable. If the possibility of life as we know it is confined to "Goldilocks zones", this implies that most of the universe is inhospitable. The hospitable bits exist purely by chance.

 

[Silk]

If the inhospitable bits didn't exist, nor would the hospitable bits.

Surely an omnipotent creator could have created a universe that was hospitable throughout?

 

[Silk]

Perhaps some things are just impossible

Well of course some things are impossible. The question is, what reason is there for presuming a largely hospitable universe is impossible?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Perhaps some things are just impossible

Like Brighton winning a football game

 

[beorhthelm]

If the inhospitable bits didn't exist, nor would the hospitable bits.

this is precisely the sort of thing im talking about, the flaws in nature. a designer wouldnt have need for the inhospitable parts, and omnipotent creator by definition would not have any confinment - they make what is and isn't possible. you have to decide if you accept they created the bad or powerless to it, in which case what other power is at work?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

This song is not for the feint of heart-just listen to the words

 

[Withdean11]

Anyone who believes In God is quite clearly a fool.

Out of interest, does anyone on here truely believe the 'Noah's Arc' story?

 

[Silk]

Perhaps our universe is the most perfect way that a universe with life can exist. It certainly has been an epic journey since the big bang. The countless laws of our universe are all so incredibly specific, but also critically vital. If even one were slightly different, would we even exist?

Hypothetically, if there was a supercomputer that was capable of randomly generating a universe & its universal laws, the chances of it even creating planets, let alone life, is so improbable it could be regarded as impossible. Yet here we are...

Where's the evidence for that statement?

 

[beorhthelm]

Hypothetically, if there was a supercomputer that was capable of randomly generating a universe & its universal laws, the chances of it even creating planets, let alone life, is so improbable it could be regarded as impossible. Yet here we are...

... so therefore the probability is 1. its a cute slight of hand, suggesting how improbable everything is, however since everything does exist the probablity is 1. this answers nothing, neither that the world (and universe) is designed to fit us or we have evolved to fit it. it is an itellectual cul-de-sac. however, when we turn around and come out of it we see that given infinite time we could be living in one instance of a universe that so happens to be conducive to us existing. some hypothesis, drawn from interpretation of quantum theory, would suggest that you dont even need infinte time, all possibilities are concurrent. what interesting here is that quantum theory proves randomness at the core of existance eitherway.

 

[Silk]

When approaching philosophical subjects there is never going to be any evidence. Science deals with evidence, but unfortunately science can't deal with any problems that are unfalisifiable - in other words, not physical. Science will never be able to explain "why" we are here, only "how" we are here. As humans, we can observe the universe around us and challenge ourselves with philosophical thought experiments, experiments which are unscientific but experiments none the less. Anybody who gives it enough thought can observe, without a doubt, that life, the world and the universe are incredible - it almost goes without saying. You can try to approach this incredibility scientifically by asking "how is this possible?" but science alone will never be able to explain it - science only accepts things for how they are, no matter how improbable they may be. Science calls these incredible attributes of our universe the laws of physics, chemistry and biology and so on. Science describes pretty comprehensively "how" these processes work, but it will never be able to explain "why" they exist. So maybe try asking yourself "why do they exist?"

That's very nice, but actually you made a statement about the probability of planets existing. That is a statement about mathematics and science, not philosophy.

 

[Twizzle]

Yes,
God exists, but he's non-denomination.

 

[Twizzle]

I have one big question for God;
why did you put nerves in teeth?

 

[Twizzle]

Yes,
God exists, but he's non-denomination.

 

[vegster]

Yes, and he thinks he is called Kevin Pieterson

 

[readingstockport]

Science will never be able to explain "why" we are here, only "how" we are here.

Rubbish. Science currently is unable to explain those things but to say it will never do so is a stupid comment. Science was unabvle to explain how the earth circled the sun at one stage, it can now do so. Science was aunble to explain disease by germs and/or bacteria. It can now do so. That is what science does, it posists a theory and investigates to see if that theory bets fits the available evidence and oibservations.

Regligion on the other hand says 'I dont understand things - so goddit.'

Trouble with that is that every time science fills on of your gaps where goddit your god dies a little more. One day all the gaps will get so small that you can no longer hide your deity in them and it will be exposed for the fairy tale it is.

 

[perseus]

Exist does God. Its absurd.