Probality of God

[WilbyInebriated]

_Cock a doodle do, what's a _Cock to do?

well... google just recently blocked co.cc and i would assume that blocking co.ck will be next...   

[Gwandau]

Just a little bit of breathing space uncontaminated by prozelytes, and this thread starts to move!
Great input!  And a lot to reflect.

OK, so maybe someone designed this universe and set it into motion.  But who designed the designer?  Another designer?  Is it turtles all the way down?
You eventually have to conclude that there must have been a designer that was not himself designed, but somehow evolved naturally on his own.  And if that is possible, why then does our universe need to be designed.  It seems an unnecessary requirement.

Well , I've personally used to favour the idea of evolvement by chance, but if that's the case there cannot be many places like earth at a given period of time, since the probability of such a thing as life evolving out of mere chance will become extremely small. Wonder how big a galaxy need to be to create life this way on more than one place simultaneously?

Also, by saying "evolved naturally", what does the concept "natural" mean? Does it indicate that the laws of physics and chemistry are structured to be favouring the dynamic appearence of the biological phenomenon?

It seems to me that a concept like "natural" indicates that our universe carry preconfigured physical and chemical settings in favour for life to evolve. 

Experiments done with simulation of the primordial atmophere of earth has shown a spontaneous formation of protein walls identical with the constituents of living cells when the primordial soup was exposed to the high electric activity of that time combined with a high level of cosmic radiation, also known to be a fact of that period. The moment the simulated thunderstorm was terminated, the cell like protein structures dissolved. Quite interesting experiment as far as I am concerned, since it indicate a readiness for life to evolve the very moment the settings are fairly correct.

The notion of an intelligent designer also introduces the notion of a beginning.
Without a beginning or an end, the requirement for an intelligent designer dwindles.
In an eternal universe, without beginning or end, the possibilities for spontaneous self organization becomes infinite. Interestingly, the notion of an omnipotent god evolving from an eternal universe where all things are numerically possible, must also be considered equally as possible as the notion of an omnipotent god creating the universe.
Chicken or egg anybody?

This reminds me of a paradox I concluded during my seven year period in the seventies as a full time philosopher: 

Infinity cannot be infinite if it does not include its own exclusion.


The idea of an intelligent designer does really not have to include the notion of a beginning.  Such an entity could just as well always have existed. But when involving infinity, this theory becomes erroneous, since we now have to find a place outside infinity for the creator to dwell. If there is a creator projecting our universe, there must be a projector room from which the creator executes the projection, which again makes us ask about the possibility of this also being a projection and so forth.

The problem with "the big bang" is that it's entire premise lies on the single piece of "evidence" of redshift. A premise that even Hubble was not prepared to attribute to the doppler effect of an expanding space. The redshift dilemna is compounded by the fact that not only is redshift quantized, but that it also shows different quantized shifts depending on which direction you look in the sky.
Couple that with the fact that big bang theory needs a plethora of add on theories such as inflation and re-ionization, and the invention of unproven particles and energies such as dark matter/energy to make it work.
The big bang theory defies the basic tenets of occams razor, and any other theory in physics that required so many ad-hoc adjustments would simply be laid to rest.
The big bang theory was introduced by a roman catholic priest (Georges Lamaitre) and was quickly adopted by christian elements of the scientific world because they thought (like Lamaitre), that the big bang theory was a great way to rationalize modern observation of the universe with their notion of creation.
Cheers
P.S I'm not proposing the big bang is a lie or just plain wrong, but I do think that it has become accepted like dogma in the same way religion has been accepted by many.

Dogma is always the result of adoption by uncreative people.  The creative ones giving birth to a scientific "truth" never are fully satisfied with  the conclusions.

So what is your opinion as to where the evidence points?  Do you think the universe is expanding, shrinking, staying the same?
Also bear in mind that the General Theory of Relativity, which there is tons of confirming evidence for, predicts an expanding universe.  Also, apparently the background radiation levels also point to a big bang, but I am not well versed in why.
I agree that the need for dark energy, or something equivalent that we have not been able to measure, is an issue.  But this is separate from whether or not galaxies are moving apart or not.  Dark energy is not evidence for the theory, but rather a byproduct.

Einstein later seemed to indicate a change of mind, when postulating the strange axiom that "time is different for every system in motion". But he was getting to old by then, and nobody was able anyway to revise the General Theory of Relativity. This and his change in attitude to the existence of the eather would probably turn most things upside down if anybody have had the intellectual capacity to follow that up.

Maybe time is a local phenomenon, directly linked to matter. If such is the case, time propagation would diminish the farther away from a solar system one goes, which the mysteriously deccelerating Pioneer 10 may be an indication of.    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/feb/28/physicalsciences.research   

If time is not a universally simultaneous phenomenon but localised to time field systems made up of planets and solar systems, there would be no such thing as measurable distances between stars and galaxies. Our whole idea of the dynamics of universe would fall flat, and our holy cow, the speed of light, would be dependent upon from which field system the observations are made, since in such a case the propagation of time is a relative phenomenon.

So as far as I am concerned, believing in the big bang theory involves believing in a lot of wild guesses.

You wrote this just before I put my P.S. in the previous post.
Given the discovery of the "great attractor", a region in space where a massive number of galaxial clusters appear to be heading toward, it would be suffice to say that even if the whole universe were not expanding, this doesn't rule out that some parts of the universe are expanding while other areas are contracting. Much like the way some parts of the earths atmoshere are heated and expand as a result, while other parts cool and contract.
Einstein formulated his theory of relativity whilst holding a belief of a static universe, and was actually quite consternated at the thought of an expanding universe.
Cheers

That seems to be the very weak part of the whole Theory of Relativity. To me a relative universe cannot be relative if there is any form of constant value or any fixed frame of reference. The only truly functional relativity theory would be a theory that relates dynamically to everything, giving a relative value fully depending upon the location of the observer. This would have to include light and time as well, otherwise relativity would not be worthy of its definition.

The universe as a whole is eternally the same, while the ephemeral forms of matter and energy within it are constantly, dynamically changing.
My opinion only! Not scientifically proven fact. Just based on my own personal current science knowledge. (Very little)!

Makes me wonder: what is then really left unchanged, if the ephemeral forms of matter and energy are changed?  What makes us think that the physical laws are existing independently of the appearance of matter and energy?

I think Time plays an important role! Without Time there is no beginning or end, it creates our reality but there are also places in our universe where time stands still. If Time stops does everything stop? Maybe if there is a God he doesn't need time.
Chicken because of evolution... cell division.

As mentioned above, maybe time is merely a function of the field surrounding a big body of mass? Maybe time is slowing down to almost nothing in the emptiness between the stars? That would change everything we know.

all of the above...
similar to this: infinite verse

Sound like a simple statement, but Wilby is really deep here.

The magnitude of infinity is not hard to grasp, it is impossible to grasp. Infinity has to include everything possible to think of, plus an infinity of everything not possible to think of, and so on.

Infinity is : And, not Or


Gwandau

[Cap-Z-ro]

_Cock a doodle do, what's a _Cock to do?
[/quote


Or as the ex usta say..."Cock a doodle do, any cock'll do."

[Magluvin]

Pardon my turkey, but

Happy Thanks Giving, where ever you are. 

Mags

[hoptoad]

Pardon my turkey, but

Happy Thanks Giving, where ever you are. 

Mags

Your turkey is pardoned. Enjoy your Thanksgiving ..... and the turkey!