The downward trend continues

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

His whole argument revolves around, if the laws of the universe were different then some other sentient creature would have evolved, without any evidence to back it up, and maybe "just is" is wrong, would you settle for "had to be" or maybe "life was inevitable" trouble is science keeps telling us that life needs certain conditions.

No - "his" whole argument is that you're in thrall to the lottery winner's fallacy. Maybe different species would have emerged with different starting conditions, maybe no life would have emerged. The mistake though is to assume that Camelot was designed especially for you just because you won the lottery.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

No, why, because you are getting ahead of yourself, we know about snakes because of evolution, we look at fossils and deduce where snakes come from, the question is "why are we even here".

Is that fallacious question.

Yes - at least until and unless you can demonstrate a sentient something to care and decide on a purposive "why?"

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

In short Blue, you're saying that you missed the same medeia event that included all of Hope's evidence that I did and in the unlikely event of this elusive evidence were to see the light of day, do you think we'd ever be allowed to hear the last of it?

I wonder why the above hasn't occured to these these god believing scientists?

I think you'll find that we all missed this great event.

Funny that.

I note too that he's gone all quiet again following various questions about the "logicians" he supposedly consulted.

Who'd have thought it eh?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

That's not it though. That part of my reply concerned only the, "what are the chances of a planet just right for us to live in" when in fact all that would be necessary is a planet in which life could evolve, after which evolution (a function of natural laws and forces) would do the rest. Had earth been entirely covered in water for example, there wouldn't be bipedal people at all. You're also confusing "how it all started" with evolution by the way - TW's repeated error.

Single cell life may not be that simple (though you could go back to precursor stages and find examples that are increasingly more simple) but it's an awful lot more

Yes I know it was only part of your reply, Gordon and Sane keep interrupting my train of thought but like Gordon I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

when in fact all that would be necessary is a planet in which life could evolve

No, what you need is a Universe for everything to be so damned perfect that all the ingredients were there in the first place for life to exist, only then can you go on to think about a planet that life can evolve on, and remember it is not me saying this but science, Hawking again,

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

He then chunters on about electric charge of electrons, but he end the paragraph by telling us,

Never the less it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life.

So before you search for your goldilocks zone you first have to find your goldilocks universe.

Had earth been entirely covered in water for example, there wouldn't be bipedal people at all.

There you go again, it's all so easy, try saying it is all covered by H2O,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water

You need a Universe that can make that magical stuff called water, and it is magical, it is super-natural, without it we are all stuffed, without it we would not be here to be stuffed.

If you look at the science and can't see God in the equation then I can only think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you look at the science and can't see God in the equation then I can only think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Gonnagle.

Quite the reverse.

God (or certainly that as envisaged by current religions) is so clearly 'human' but with extra powers - so self evidently the kind of god that a human would create, created in their own image so to speak, that a god of that type could only 'exist' if humans exist and created it.

If you look through the telescope from the right end then there might be omnipresent and omnipotent powers in the universe. But they wouldn't bother with parochial 'human' characteristics such as love or vengefulness or compassion, or punishment - nope those attributes are irrelevant to the non anthropomorphised world view. Nope that power would be so universal as to be as critically relevant to a barren piece of rock orbiting a remote star millions of years ago as it is to a human on earth today. And therefore the only 'power' that fits that bill is effectively energy itself and the fundamental laws of physics that govern the same.

So science is getting it right, looking through the right end of the telescope, looking for universal physical laws. Religion is looking through the wrong end of the telescope, assuming that everything really begins or ends with humans, and therefore creates a human-type god.

[Hope]

God (or certainly that as envisaged by current religions) is so clearly 'human' but with extra powers - so self evidently the kind of god that a human would create, created in their own image so to speak, that a god of that type could only 'exist' if humans exist and created it.

Evidence for this assertion, please, PD.  'Current religions' differ from each other in a number of ways, and so yoiur massive generalisation is somewhat pointless.

[ProfessorDavey]

Evidence for this assertion, please, PD.  'Current religions' differ from each other in a number of ways, and so yoiur massive generalisation is somewhat pointless.

Give me an example of a god associated with any major religion that is not 'super-human' in its attributes, in other word possesses attributes that are clearly 'human' but would not be associated with (for example) a rock orbiting a distant planet, or perhaps a bacterium, yet taken to a higher level than humans possess.

Actually 'current religions' are very, very similar in their descriptions of god if you consider things in a broad universal manner, rather than a narrow, human-centric manner. Which is exactly as you would expect if gods are created by humans, who, where-ever the live or have lived over the past few thousand years, have far more that unites, than divides (again if you consider things in a broad universal manner, rather than a narrow, human-centric manner).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

If you look through the telescope from the right end then there might be omnipresent and omnipotent powers in the universe. But they wouldn't bother with parochial 'human' characteristics such as love or vengefulness or compassion, or punishment

Strange but that makes me wonder, if there is life on other planets, would they be devoid of Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment, or are these traits universal.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Strange but that makes me wonder, if there is life on other planets, would they be devoid of Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment, or are these traits universal.

Gonnagle.

Why not - those attributes are very much ones associated with social animals (and actually a sub-set of social animals, those with a fairly high consciousness), they are seen in plenty of other 'life' on earth, including many that are (if you aren't human centric) just as successful as humans or more so - from all plants, through bacteria to many insects and non social 'higher' species.

Unless you are looking through your telescope (itself a human-centic concept) at the end marked 'human-centric' why would you necessarily consider humans, and their attributes superior, to those of a 1000 year old pine tree.

Bottom line -  Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment are very far from universal, even within 'life' on this planet - they mean nothing to a 1000 year old pine tree, let alone a rock orbiting a distant planet. Basic laws of physics are as relevant to the rock as they are to the pine tree and to you and me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Strange but that makes me wonder, if there is life on other planets, would they be devoid of Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment, or are these traits universal.

Gonnagle.

And it needs to be added that those attributes are essential in evolutionary terms to social animals with higher consciousness, where learning from the social group is important and where the young of that species are especially vulnerable until they have learned from their social group.

In reality, even on our planet, they are exceptionally narrow attributes, only shared by a tiny, tiny proportion of live on earth.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Bottom line -  Love, Compassion, Vengefulness, punishment are very far from universal, even within 'life' on this planet - they mean nothing to a 1000 year old pine tree, let alone a rock orbiting a distant planet. Basic laws of physics are as relevant to the rock as they are to the pine tree and to you and me.

I think you are being very human about all of this, saying that a pine tree does not experience Love or Compassion, maybe not like a human experiences it but as our knowledge of the natural world grows we are finding that we have only scratched the surface.

I watched a Ted talk about a young lady who studies tree's, not only do they talk to each other but they help one another to survive, to go on, one remarkable claim she stated, dying tree's transmit advice to other tree's and seedlings, mother tree's take care of baby tree's

Do tree's have feelings, I don't know Prof, I found the video, you tell me

https://www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_simard_how_trees_talk_to_each_other?language=en

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

I think you are being very human about all of this, saying that a pine tree does not experience Love or Compassion, maybe not like a human experiences it but as our knowledge of the natural world grows we are finding that we have only scratched the surface.

I watched a Ted talk about a young lady who studies tree's, not only do they talk to each other but they help one another to survive, to go on, one remarkable claim she stated, dying tree's transmit advice to other tree's and seedlings, mother tree's take care of baby tree's

Do tree's have feelings, I don't know Prof, I found the video, you tell me

https://www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_simard_how_trees_talk_to_each_other?language=en

Gonnagle.

Pure anthropomorphism.

Humans asking whether trees have 'feelings' (in a human sense) is as wide of the mark as trees asking whether humans have 'photosynthetic' ability (in a tree sense).

Sure it is fun for humans to create Ents (as Tolkein did), but trees aren't human and humans aren't trees - their attributes that are important in an evolutionary sense are distinct.

[Hope]

And it needs to be added that those attributes are essential in evolutionary terms to social animals with higher consciousness, where learning from the social group is important and where the young of that species are especially vulnerable until they have learned from their social group.

In reality, even on our planet, they are exceptionally narrow attributes, only shared by a tiny, tiny proportion of live on earth.

Its all very well to say that these "attributes are essential in evolutionary terms", but just how have they evolved?  If there is one area of the theory of evolution that I find difficult to understnd it is how these more esoteric elements evolved, perhaps even 'why' they evolved.

[ProfessorDavey]

Its all very well to say that these "attributes are essential in evolutionary terms", but just how have they evolved?

By saying that you clearly demonstrate that you have no concept of evolution.

Attributes don't 'evolve', they arise through random events and having arisen prove to have an evolutionary advantage (or they don't) and if they do are thus more likely to by passed on to the next generation. They can only be embedded if they can be inherited, i.e. passed on to the next generation. That inheritance may be genetic, but it can also be epigenetic or learned.

[Hope]

That inheritance may be genetic, but it can also be epigenetic or learned.

That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

Humans asking whether trees have 'feelings' (in a human sense)

I never said that, I asked if tree's could experience love or compassion in a very tree like way, according to the young lady, tree's nurture their young, she also states,

We have to give Mother Nature the tools she needs to use her intelligence to self-heal.

Does nature have an intelligence, anyway goodnight Prof and may your science go with you ( doesn't have the same ring as God )

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.

Of course it does. But that's self evident - social animals with higher consciousness evolved from earlier life-forms that clearly didn't exhibit those attribute through an incremental evolutionary process.

The whole point of evolution is about which attributes that haven't always been present from day 1 (but arise later in a random manner) are retained and which aren't. Those which persist are those that confer an evolutionary advantage, those that don't confer evolutionary advantage rapidly disappear.

Frankly I'm not convinced that you actually understand evolution at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

I never said that, I asked if tree's could experience love or compassion in a very tree like way, according to the young lady, tree's nurture their young, she also states,

Does nature have an intelligence, anyway goodnight Prof and may your science go with you ( doesn't have the same ring as God )

Gonnagle.

I think that article indicates that trees may 'communicate'.

Well hold the front page, of course they can - virtually all life forms have mechanisms whereby they 'communicate' with others of the same species or of other species. Usually this is via chemical substances they release that can be detected. So if you walk through a wood and smell wild garlic that is an example - that plant is 'communicating' with you, but actually that isn't communicating in human terms. Likely that is a by-product of its intended target (with evolutionary advantage) - so for many plants there is a need for other species for pollen distribution or other mechanisms for reproduction. So there is evolutionary advantage for a plant which needs insects to pollenate to produce chemicals that attract those insects.

[Gordon]

That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.

Is this your assumption?

[torridon]

That, of course, assumes that they weren't already embedded in the make-up from day 1.

There is no precedent to imagine that high level complexity arises spontaneously out of nowhere. In the beginning, there were no planets, no stars, no atoms even, never mind jellyfish, aardvarks or investment bankers. What study has taught us, is that complexity increases locally and gradually and incrementally over time within an overarching tendency to increasing entropy.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no precedent to imagine that high level complexity arises spontaneously out of nowhere. In the beginning, there were no planets, no stars, no atoms even, never mind jellyfish, aardvarks or investment bankers. What study has taught us, is that complexity increases locally and gradually and incrementally over time within an overarching tendency to increasing entropy.

It also assumes we can determine when 'day 1' was.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Yes I know it was only part of your reply, Gordon and Sane keep interrupting my train of thought but like Gordon I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

Getting ahead of myself how?

The point remains: either you conclude that the universe was designed for little old you and marvel at the chances of if being just right for that purpose, or you conclude that it's you who fits the universe rather then the other way around and thus that the fine tuning argument is broken. 

No, what you need is a Universe for everything to be so damned perfect that all the ingredients were there in the first place for life to exist, only then can you go on to think about a planet that life can evolve on, and remember it is not me saying this but science, Hawking again,

No, all that's necessary is a universe in which life of some type could have emerged. Given that there are reckoned to be around a trillion trillion stars and who knows how many attendant solar systems it's entirely possible that life has emerged - many, many, many times and in many, many, many varieties.

Who know, maybe in some far-flung galaxy there's an evolved species of nine-headed, methane breathing dragon monster wondering just as earnestly as you are at the remarkable co-incidence of a universe being just right for him to be there too.     

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Far be it from me to argue with the great man, but it's only remarkable if you think this particular type of life to be special. It's a philosophical rather than a scientific point. 

He then chunters on about electric charge of electrons, but he end the paragraph by telling us,

"Never the less it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life."

I'm not sure how he gets there as, presumably, life need not necessary be "life as we know it" - but, either way, while there may be relatively few ranges there are vast numbers of opportunities over time and over space for that narrow range to have happened.

Even if that wasn't the case though and there had been just one opportunity and it had produced just you, so what? That you exist says nothing to some supposed grand plan that had you all along as the end game.   

So before you search for your goldilocks zone you first have to find your goldilocks universe.

Only if you think that you're special to the universe. Presumably though the methane monster would say just the same thing.

There you go again, it's all so easy, try saying it is all covered by H2O,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water

You need a Universe that can make that magical stuff called water, and it is magical, it is super-natural, without it we are all stuffed, without it we would not be here to be stuffed.

If you look at the science and can't see God in the equation then I can only think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

There's nothing "magical" about water - it's just chemicals, albeit with relatively unusual properties. The only wrong end of the telescope viewing here is yours I think - try not looking from the perspective of the lottery winner and considering the picture as if you were Camelot instead: someone is bound to win, but you have no interest whatever in "fine tuning" the numbers so it's G.Onnagle of 23 Sevastopol Villas, Glasgow, United Kingdom, The World, The Galaxy, The Universe.   

[Sassy]

Sass how do you or anyone else shut out something that's not there?

Hang on Sass I've got a load of elves riding unicorns knocking at the front door gotta go now.

ippy

How many people believe in Jesus Christ throughout the world since he came?
How long have the belief in elves ride unicorns been around or they would be able to knock on the door riding a unicorn?

Have you anything else Ippy. Failure of the magnum scale with that reply. What an imagination.
Maybe if spent less time looking for the impossible you would see the probably.

[floo]

As has been said many times just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't necessarily mean it is, especially if it lacks credibility like the things attributed to Jesus.

Lots of people claimed to have seen the Angel of Mons, which was only a story written by a journalist.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

As has been said many times just because a lot of people believe something to be true doesn't necessarily mean it is, ...

So what are you using to challenge it then Floo? I could easily run around saying, "As has been said many times just because a lot of people don't believe something is true doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true"

The thing lacking from you and the other atheists here is either
- A refutation of what is claimed
- An affirmation of that which contradicts what is claimed.