Science increasingly makes the case for god

by DesirousOfChange 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Caedes

  Double post
• 

  bohm

  Actually I don't like the LK Essay. The main objections to the OP seems to be on my single reading:

  (1) the number of parameters for intelligent life may be correlated such that the possibility of getting a jackpot-planet is higher than the product of the marginal probabilities: "The first is a familiar mistake of elaborating all the factors responsible for some specific event and calculating all the probabilities as if they were independent. "

  (2) life may originate under very different circumstances: "And we now understand that, even in our solar system, there are a host of possible sites where life might have evolved that were long considered unlikely. Moons of Jupiter and Saturn may have vast oceans of liquid water, underneath ice covers, which are heated by gravitational tidal friction associated with their giant hosts. "

  The problem with (2) is that the argument in the article is that the probability that life originates on a planet depend on a number of factors, period. So to say that life may originate under other circumstances is thus simply ignoring the claim. To circumvent the argument Krauss should demonstrate that the quotes used in the article relates to earth-like life, or that the claim itself is wrong because it makes false assumptions. I don't see how this is done without addressing the claim.

  Regarding (1), it may be true the parameters are correlated, or they may not be correlated. If they are correlated, they may be correlated in a favorable way or an unfavorable way. For krauss to say they may be correlated in a favorable way is thus to make two assumptions which he does not support and to my mind requires evidence: (a) that the parameters are correlated (b) that they are correlated in a way that place more (and not less) probabilistic mass on earth-like planets.

  Now, I don't buy the argument in the article one bit and the first thing i would look at was where the 200 parameters come from and what sort of range they have, however I don't think Krauss really does that asides offering his informed opinion. 
• 

  Village Idiot

  prologos:

  "VI compare the merging of two galaxies to the entwining of two humans to start a new life, separate and do it again later, orgasm and all. Only good as gold can come from this."

  Good try but as I mentioned "... all the destruction that creates[?]" Let me elaborate on that.

  The increased gravity from stars coming close together will pull planets out of their orbits, plunging them into a permanent freeze, or send them hurtling into their sun incinerating them. Imagine what would happen to life in those planets. Also it will cause other stars to detonate as supernovas incinerating whatever life there is on those planets.

  Furthermore, it seems that every galaxy has an enormous black hole in its center. Two black holes coming together will become the mother of all cosmic disasters with a detonation that is probably worse than a million supernovas. This might possibly destroy all life throughout the merged galaxies.

  Not a pretty picture. 

  PS: You said "Only good as gold can come from this." 

  Ironically you're right but only in a literal sense. Gold and other elements are created during a supernova explosion. However no one will get rich. 
• 

  freemindfade

  In my opinion this makes a bigger case for atheism not god. It would just show the randomness of life. Watch cosmos. Earth has had life spring up and advance only to be destroyed by it. And it may again. Part of gods perfect plan? I think not. Even now our own planet and sun can harm us. Life on other planets would only prove evolution under proper conditions 
• 

  Village Idiot

  freemindfade:

  "Part of gods perfect plan?" 

  More like an extracosmic scientist, in a multiverse, playing in a laboratory with our universe being the result of one out of trillion test tubes. Maybe this experiment will fail. 

   
• 

  Ucantnome

  I read this article on the internet about ancient planets here

   http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26856-ancient-planets-are-almost-as-old-as-the-universe.html?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%257CNSNS%257C2014-GLOBAL-hoot#.VMeNxWazWUl here's a quote from it.

  "These planets mean it only took the universe a couple billion years to figure out how to build rocky planets, and they've been around for a really long time," says Travis Metcalfe at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado. While Kepler 444's planets are too hot for life, its age suggests there might be cooler, older worlds elsewhere. "If life needs a long time to develop or lots of places to try to develop, having rocky planets this early in the history of the galaxy means planets with advanced civilisations should be everywhere." 

  I thought it was interesting and may relate to the thread.

  
  
• 

  Village Idiot

  Ucantnome, I highly recommend the book Rare Earth by Peter D. Ward to anyone interested in the question of life in this universe.
• 

  Ucantnome

  Thank you Village Idiot. I will add it to my list.
• 

  Finkelstein

  SCIENCE INCREASINGLY MAKES THE CASE FOR GOD The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer.  Intelligent design, anyone?

    Bullshit plain and simple !

   There are roughly 500 billion galaxies in the universe, meaning there is somewhere in the region of 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (5×1022) habitable planets.

   What do you suppose would be the percentage chance of another planet among the many in the universe that could having biological life on it ?   As for the intelligent design theory by a supernatural force.
  There have been huge meteorites that have hit the earth in its history, One so enormous that it actually killed much of the living species living on the planet.

   Does that sound like intelligent design or an event from non supernatural occurrence involving Astrophysics ?