The Bible is accurate in dates of battles. And much, much more.

And yet the dates don't line up with the history of Eygpt.

The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose.

Now, I have answered your question fully.

Now you will answer mine. The Anthropic Principle believes in a linkage between the fine tuning of various physical parameters of the universe and at the same time the various physical needs of human existence. Why do you ignore it?

"The challenge," Penrose said, "is to find a plausible explanation for this fine-tuning." The odds that our universe with life, could have accidentally evolved into its present fine-tuned configuration are one in 10 to the 10123. This is why many theorists believe in the existence of a "super-calculating intellect", "intelligent agent" to account for the fine-tuning.

Hoyle, in his writings, echos the same thoughts. Why do you ignore it?

Fully? You're on the right track when you say it's about the energy of the Big Bang, though there's more to it than that (it's not about fine-tuning).

First mention of the Anthropic Principle, so it's unclear why there's an accusation of my ignoring it. BTW, to my mind the principle is unremarkable (though perhaps a little unsatisfactory) and does not appear to suggest what you claim it does. Put (perhaps overly) simply, the anthropic principle states the universe is the way it is, because, if it were any other way, we would not be here to observe it.

What is the source for your quote from Penrose? The Penrose number has nothing, I repeat nothing, whatsoever to do with the evolution of life (or indeed the evolution of the universe).

For what it's worth, Penrose is commenting on Hoyle when he refers to "supercalculating intellect", which you'd know if you'd bothered to read Hoyle's article:

Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

Here Hoyle is discussing the triple alpha process, and not the evolution of life, or the evolution of the universe, as you'll see from the wikipedia article, it's about the production of carbon in stars.

ID, until you start reading what the scientists are actually saying, rather than the garbled nonsense that is repeated on the various Creationist/Intelligent Design sites you frequent, you won't stand a chance of making the case that you want to. It's clear that the quote is from such a site, as the Penrose number is 10^10^123 not 10^10123, the two numbers are vastly different from one another.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Yes. I was taught my shapes at age 3 and around 4 it took.

Would you like to see a photo of a oval and that of a circle? Both can be seen as round--depending on your point of view. Yes? Do you see the futility of this type of argument? Really, do you?

Very good, though the pictures of a circle and of an oval are 2D pictures of 2D objects, the WMAP picture is of a 3D object projected onto 2D.

Perhaps this animation might help you understand the point of this type of argument.

And as expected you would ignore the point of view. I'm not surprised.

You appeared to be using the WMAP picture in support of a rugby ball shape for the universe, watch the animation I linked and you'll see why the WMAP picture is the shape it is. It offers you no basis to make any evaluation of the universe's shape "from the outside" (if such a thing makes any sense in the first place).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Not necessarily true.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Not necessarily true.

I've quickly read through that link, and did not see anything to suggest we can see objects further that ~13 Billion light-years. Could you use the headings to give a better sighting on the relevant paragraph.

They are only pictures of the bit we can see, we cannot see further because the universe has only been in existance for 13.75 Billion years. If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Shape of the Universe - 101 fm NASA

How could there have been objects in place before the universe was created? Universe to me means all objects, you know kinda universal.

---

{smile}, yes I know it's spherical, If we use intelligent design we can see a pattern that should give us a spherical universe. If you could be on the outside you could confirm that. I understand that fact (wmap) to be a working theory.

I told you I mastered my shapes at 4 years of age. LOL.

They are only pictures of the bit we can see, we cannot see further because the universe has only been in existance for 13.75 Billion years. If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Shape of the Universe - 101 fm NASA

How could there have been objects in place before the universe was created? Universe to me means all objects, you know kinda universal.

What we refer to as the universe is actually only the "observable universe". There is nothing to say we are at the centre of the universe, except that as it all started as a miniscual dot and expanded, then all of the universe is the centre of the universe.

So if ET is sat in a galaxy 13 Billion light-years away he will be observing an "observable universe" similar to ours, with us somewhere on the edge.

The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose.

Now, I have answered your question fully.

Now you will answer mine. The Anthropic Principle believes in a linkage between the fine tuning of various physical parameters of the universe and at the same time the various physical needs of human existence. Why do you ignore it?

"The challenge," Penrose said, "is to find a plausible explanation for this fine-tuning." The odds that our universe with life, could have accidentally evolved into its present fine-tuned configuration are one in 10 to the 10123. This is why many theorists believe in the existence of a "super-calculating intellect", "intelligent agent" to account for the fine-tuning.

Hoyle, in his writings, echos the same thoughts. Why do you ignore it?

Fully? You're on the right track when you say it's about the energy of the Big Bang, though there's more to it than that (it's not about fine-tuning).

First mention of the Anthropic Principle, so it's unclear why there's an accusation of my ignoring it. BTW, to my mind the principle is unremarkable (though perhaps a little unsatisfactory) and does not appear to suggest what you claim it does. Put (perhaps overly) simply, the anthropic principle states the universe is the way it is, because, if it were any other way, we would not be here to observe it.

What is the source for your quote from Penrose? The Penrose number has nothing, I repeat nothing, whatsoever to do with the evolution of life (or indeed the evolution of the universe).

For what it's worth, Penrose is commenting on Hoyle when he refers to "supercalculating intellect", which you'd know if you'd bothered to read Hoyle's article:

Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

Here Hoyle is discussing the triple alpha process, and not the evolution of life, or the evolution of the universe, as you'll see from the wikipedia article, it's about the production of carbon in stars.

ID, until you start reading what the scientists are actually saying, rather than the garbled nonsense that is repeated on the various Creationist/Intelligent Design sites you frequent, you won't stand a chance of making the case that you want to. It's clear that the quote is from such a site, as the Penrose number is 10^10^123 not 10^10123, the two numbers are vastly different from one another.

You miss the point. He seen intelligence in the evolution of stars.

Yes, vastly different, yet pointing in a direction that you refuse to see in.

{smile}, yes I know it's spherical, If we use intelligent design we can see a pattern that should give us a spherical universe. If you could be on the outside you could confirm that. I understand that fact (wmap) to be a working theory.

I told you I mastered my shapes at 4 years of age. LOL.

And not progressed since then.

Go and read the links we gave. It is only the "observable universe" that is spherical.

No matter which way you look you can only see objects up to 13 Billion light-years away.

Do you understand Mercator Projections?

Do you realise that Greenland is actually much smaller than Africa?

If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Not necessarily true.

I've quickly read through that link, and did not see anything to suggest we can see objects further that ~13 Billion light-years. Could you use the headings to give a better sighting on the relevant paragraph.

What makes you think that the big bang was just two gamma bursts? Yes, that is what we see in nature so I two would tend to agree that it was just two bursts like any gamma burst. But, the old U.S.S.R. (we think) built a bomb that was three bursts of gamma. So, we can't rule out something past the cosmic microwave background noise.

Any event of such a catastrophic proportion from the first nuclear test to the death of a star comes in two gamma bursts, a small one [crushing event, of some type] and the release of energy.

ID, universe is a definition, and can not be modified. If modified the word means something else, not universe.

---

So, we can't rule out something past the cosmic microwave background noise.

So you are beginning to learn something. Now, maybe, you realise why I asked if there is an outside.

As we all know if you draw a triangle on a flat surface then the angles always add up to equal 180 degrees.

If the triangle is not flat then the sum of the angles is NOT 180 degree's. As in start at north pole, go 100 miles south, turn 90 degrees right, go 100 miles. turn right 90 degrees, go 100 miles, where are you now?

So if you draw a very large triangle in the universe, knowing the length of all the sides. and you then calculate that the sum of the angles is 180 degrees then you know the triangle is flat.

Therefore in is unbounded and therefore infinite.


How Do We Know The Universe Is Flat?

If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Not necessarily true.

I've quickly read through that link, and did not see anything to suggest we can see objects further that ~13 Billion light-years. Could you use the headings to give a better sighting on the relevant paragraph.

Sure size:

The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 gigaparsecs (46 billion light years or 4.3×10^26 meters) in any direction.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The fine tuning concerning the energy of the Big Bang has been quantified by Roger Penrose.

Now, I have answered your question fully.

Now you will answer mine. The Anthropic Principle believes in a linkage between the fine tuning of various physical parameters of the universe and at the same time the various physical needs of human existence. Why do you ignore it?

"The challenge," Penrose said, "is to find a plausible explanation for this fine-tuning." The odds that our universe with life, could have accidentally evolved into its present fine-tuned configuration are one in 10 to the 10123. This is why many theorists believe in the existence of a "super-calculating intellect", "intelligent agent" to account for the fine-tuning.

Hoyle, in his writings, echos the same thoughts. Why do you ignore it?

Fully? You're on the right track when you say it's about the energy of the Big Bang, though there's more to it than that (it's not about fine-tuning).

First mention of the Anthropic Principle, so it's unclear why there's an accusation of my ignoring it. BTW, to my mind the principle is unremarkable (though perhaps a little unsatisfactory) and does not appear to suggest what you claim it does. Put (perhaps overly) simply, the anthropic principle states the universe is the way it is, because, if it were any other way, we would not be here to observe it.

What is the source for your quote from Penrose? The Penrose number has nothing, I repeat nothing, whatsoever to do with the evolution of life (or indeed the evolution of the universe).

For what it's worth, Penrose is commenting on Hoyle when he refers to "supercalculating intellect", which you'd know if you'd bothered to read Hoyle's article:

Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

Here Hoyle is discussing the triple alpha process, and not the evolution of life, or the evolution of the universe, as you'll see from the wikipedia article, it's about the production of carbon in stars.

ID, until you start reading what the scientists are actually saying, rather than the garbled nonsense that is repeated on the various Creationist/Intelligent Design sites you frequent, you won't stand a chance of making the case that you want to. It's clear that the quote is from such a site, as the Penrose number is 10^10^123 not 10^10123, the two numbers are vastly different from one another.

You miss the point. He seen intelligence in the evolution of stars.

Yes, vastly different, yet pointing in a direction that you refuse to see in.

You miss the point, I mentioned garbled nonsense because 10^10123 is a garlbled typo of 10^10^123. Keep on reading the nonsense if you wish, I'll stick to the science, it's much clearer and the vast majority of it does not suggest what you claim. You appear to be trapped by Hoyle's fallacy, and doomed to making the same fallacious arguments, it's time you started reading what the scientists say rather than what the ID "theorists" say the scientists say. I'll admit the Penrose paper is not simple, though you'll have to do better than a single inaccurate line before you can say that you have summarized the context of his number fully.

I give you my sources (and even find some of your own for you), how about answering my request for the source of the Penrose quote?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It is your conclusion, you don't speak for everyone. As I said you're entitled to your opinions. But for the majority of people their Faith is true and correct. It is in the disrespect of that Faith by not looking at the proof provided.

I have bothered to look at the other side of the argument of no God. I disagree. And provide what I believe it truth. And just like you and others add science as part of that proof.

The logic is so simple, who made who? You work backwards in history from that question.

The Bible is accurate in dates of battles. And much, much more.

But, I'm not here to discuss any of this. What did God do before creation.

What makes sense to me is that the intelligent agent/God must stand outside of our timeline.

All of us are on the inside looking out. We are not on the outside looking in.

All information about the intelligent agent/God will be incomplete and will always be incomplete because of the simple fact that our perspective is and will always be, from the inside looking out.

We have only one timeline that we can test, our own. That's limits any real science to our own. And I do believe this is called a working theory?

[smile]

ID
I never think of myself as speaking for everyone but I am a thoughtful person and when I am unsure of someones argument I have to ask questions to clarify their reasoning so I might better understand them.

I really want to understand your arguments and be confident that if I say to you at some point in the future, "Yep, OK, I agree with you," about whatever else you claim, then I must be convinced of your credibility of thought.

I know you don't want to talk about the Bible but it is key. The Bible is just one of many documents which recorded human existence on a geographically small part of the earth over a shortish (relative to the age of the earth) period of time. It does not include all human activity in all parts of the world, throughout all of human existence.

I never said it wasn't accurate apart from a few old testament fancies, which given the age of the planet, are apocryphal. But the New Testament does omit lots of contemporary 'books' and other equally 'accurate' writings. Therefore, it is an incomplete record and was deliberately created to serve a purpose. These facts are irrefutable as the other omitted works exist.

Once 'compiled' and once things had settled down a bit, it was copied numerous times, by hand, by monks, in Latin and that wasn't even its original language. (I go and look at one most weeks as they regularly turn the pages so we can read the beautiful illuminated text). Graphical errors and errors of tranposition often crept in and then those errors were mis-interpreted as they were mis-translated into English to begin with and then...well, imagine translating that into, say, French (quelle horreur!)

If you believe that the Bible is a complete, unadulterated, accurate account of man and his existence on the earth, then I would have to conclude that you have not properly studied the evidence and thought it through. This would throw your other claims into doubt.

As far as faith is concerned. Man has had 'faith' ever since he was terrified by the first eclipse of the sun (as seen from earth that is!). Faith helped him cope a bit!

Your question, 'What did God do before the creation?', is skewed from the start by assuming the existence of 'a' God sitting, floating or twiddling It's thumbs in boredom just before creation (whatever form that took!).

Your question, being respectful of other faiths or lack thereof, should have been 'Did Gods exist before the creation?' or 'Was the creation a natural phenomenon?'

All your statements about looking in, out and/or shaking it all about are irrelevant if we cannot prove the existence of God. I'm sorry but 'believing' in one is not enough for the rest of humanity just as not 'believing' in clairvoyance doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't happen! We just don't know yet as we may have just forgotten how to do that!

Having said all that, I would very much like to read what your thoughts and conclusions were on your studies into the 'no' God arguements.

Great post. Clear & concise points raised without the use of scientific or mathamatical mumbo jumbo to confuse the issue.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

Now that is beautiful!

If there are objects 15 Billion light-years away the light from them, just hasn't arrived yet.

Not necessarily true.

I've quickly read through that link, and did not see anything to suggest we can see objects further that ~13 Billion light-years. Could you use the headings to give a better sighting on the relevant paragraph.

What makes you think that the big bang was just two gamma bursts? Yes, that is what we see in nature so I two would tend to agree that it was just two bursts like any gamma burst. But, the old U.S.S.R. (we think) built a bomb that was three bursts of gamma. So, we can't rule out something past the cosmic microwave background noise.

Any event of such a catastrophic proportion from the first nuclear test to the death of a star comes in two gamma bursts, a small one [crushing event, of some type] and the release of energy.

Who here, other than yourself, said anything about 2 gamma ray bursts? Who here has suggested there was a "crushing event" prior to the release of energy that was the big bang? (even supposing prior to the ... big bang makes any sense).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...