Author | Message |
Misfit Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
ID: 1251451 · |
|
Sirius B Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24870 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7
|
Nice link, but it doesn't answer the "big" question, it just starts the whole argument over again.....
So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."
So in that kid's universe, does his parents & friends argue about the big bang/religion?
ID: 1251462 · |
|
Intelligent Design
Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0
|
How can you start with:
"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"
and then end with:
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
And expect to be taken seriously?
Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.
And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.
I don't think they get it? [smile]
ID: 1251519 · |
|
bobby
Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3
|
How can you start with:
"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"
and then end with:
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
And expect to be taken seriously?
Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.
And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.
I don't think they get it? [smile]
What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
ID: 1251528 · |
|
bobby
Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3
|
How can you start with:
"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"
and then end with:
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
And expect to be taken seriously?
Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.
You do understand the difference between the sentences "The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe" and "The Big Bang didn't have God to start universe" don't you?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
ID: 1251530 · |
|
Misfit Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Nice link, but it doesn't answer the "big" question, it just starts the whole argument over again.....
So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."
So in that kid's universe, does his parents & friends argue about the big bang/religion?
It's proof that too much SETI can be hazardous to your mental health.
me@rescam.org
ID: 1251542 · |
|
Sirius B Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24870 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7
|
Naw, in my case, too much Guinness.....
ID: 1251553 · |
|
Misfit Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Naw, in my case, too much Guinness.....
So what you're saying is when you mix Guinness with SETI you get...
me@rescam.org
ID: 1251556 · |
|
Sirius B Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24870 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7
|
ID: 1251569 · |
|
Intelligent Design
Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0
|
How can you start with:
"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"
and then end with:
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
And expect to be taken seriously?
Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.
And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.
I don't think they get it? [smile]
What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).
I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.
ID: 1251612 · |
|
bobby
Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3
|
How can you start with:
"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"
and then end with:
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
And expect to be taken seriously?
Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.
And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.
I don't think they get it? [smile]
What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).
I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.
OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
ID: 1251619 · |
|
Intelligent Design
Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0
|
How can you start with:
"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"
and then end with:
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
And expect to be taken seriously?
Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.
And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.
I don't think they get it? [smile]
What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).
I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.
OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?
Because we are in the here and now.
Why do you believe in chance after I have shown you that is impossible?
ID: 1251625 · |
|
bobby
Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3
|
How can you start with:
"The Big Bang didn't need God to start universe, researchers say"
and then end with:
"The 'divine spark' was whatever produced the laws of physics," Filippenko said. "And I don't know what produced that divine spark. So let's just leave it at the laws of physics."
And expect to be taken seriously?
Besides, if there are no absolutes (, rights, or wrongs) then there's no such thing as "the laws" of physics.
And we have got to have them laws in just the right mix for life to be possible.
I don't think they get it? [smile]
What I find interesting is that the scientists in the article are humble enough to say that they don't know why those laws are in "just the right mix for life" ("The origin of the laws of physics remains a mystery for now, he added, one that we may never be able to solve."). You, however, appear to believe that some supreme being made them that way just so that you could live and come to know this supreme being. Others of similar beliefs will tell me that unless I do the same I will spend an eternity in eternal suffering, while at the same time assert this supreme being endowed me with the free will to not believe in its existence (such a will does not strike me as very free).
I have NEVER said such a thing and never will. THAT is between you and God.
OK, why do you believe this supreme being made the laws of physics in "just the right mix for life"?
Because we are in the here and now.
Why do you believe in chance after I have shown you that is impossible?
So the supreme being made the laws of physics for us after all?
If you have shown chance to be impossible I missed it, can you provide a link?
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...
ID: 1251628 · |
|
Misfit Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 21 Jun 01 Posts: 21804 Credit: 2,815,091 RAC: 0
|
Can something as clearly defined and exacting as the laws of physics and mathematics come about by chance? me@rescam.org
ID: 1251828 · |
|
betreger
Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11354 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66
|
Can something as clearly defined and exacting as the laws of physics and mathematics come about by chance?
I think math has rules not laws and there is a difference.
ID: 1251835 · |
|
Gary Charpentier Volunteer tester
Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30592 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32
|
Can something as clearly defined and exacting as the laws of physics and mathematics come about by chance?
The infinite number of monkeys ...
ID: 1251845 · |
|
betreger
Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11354 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66
|
ID: 1251859 · |
|
Intelligent Design
Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0
|
-1
and back to zero you are.
http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys
ID: 1251866 · |
|
betreger
Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11354 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66
|
ID, it is good to see that you are processing SETI data again, your contribution to the project was missed.
ID: 1251872 · |
|