Re: OT: Why do Atheists have children?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:44:50 -0700, "Howard Beale" <a1695@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Apr 26 2007 7:26 PM, Lynx wrote:

I have also read that if the exploding singularity had been
4/quadrillionths heavier it couldn't have exploded. 4/quadrillionths
lighter and it couldn't have formed.

So what? By you reasoning, why does it matter if the universe exists or
not? The amount of time that life will be feasible in this universe is
finite. By current theory, it will either collapse into a big crunch or
die a cold death where nearly all energy is frozen into matter and free
energy is too sparse for life to be possible.

According to your suggestion, there is no point in having in having
children if their consciousness will not exist infinitely. By that
argument, one could say that it doesn't matter whether or not the universe
exists, as it will only be suitable for any conscious life forms for a
finite length of time.

I put that in there because it's one of the things that I think indicates
the possibility of a designer. That is a precision so unimaginable on a
mass so incalculable it is almost as mind boggling as the size of the
exploding singularity itself which I've read 2 descriptions of. One has
it being smaller than an atom, another being the size of a marble. Can
you imagine something so exquisitely fine, so precise, coming into
existence by itself from out of nowhere? Where was the nowhere that it
came from? And why did it come? It makes no sense. We have to accept it
because it happened but, really, doesn't all of this at least leave room
for even a small possiblity of there being a Creator?

This is, I think, one of the stronger arguments for some kind of creator.

However, there are perfectly good counterarguments, too. One of the most
obvious is that while there may be an infinite number of universes, only those
capable of sustaining matter, energy, et cetera, in coherent forms can produce
observers capable of perceiving them. Therefore, by definition, any universe
which exists in any meaningful sense would have to be able to contain observers.

A universe which cannot be perceived does not exist.

Therefore, any universe which does exist by definition contains observers,
and the fact of containing observers proves that it is a universe capable of
maintaining matter and energy in coherent, stable forms.
.

Relevant Pages

  • pam, have a magnificent hour. You wont obtain it
    ... description of how life is formed by information. ... The term 'entropy' began life as a subtle measure of energy flow. ... This is sometimes referred to as 'the universe is running down'. ... Instead of just matter ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >>> is not to say that I believe that there is an inherent meaning in life. ... Matter is not an entity with a mind. ... >> overwhelmingly hostile universe. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Another sort of expansion?
    ... universe, you should read the paper from the Princeton ... You have to think of space in terms of potential energy, ... But the matter involved isn't fundamentally ... With life, when fully niche filled, the next large evolutionary ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Lets get this straight - Mudbrain is a moron.
    ... Ah, right, you don't depend on evidence, you insist that we depend on ... A universe is born entirely thru natural processes (from previous ... probably many, planets led to life. ... there was no matter to start with - it was all energy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does our Solar System or Earth look a bit personal to you ?
    ... If that is what is required for life as we ... arising from the ways in which matter behaves. ... chance - but that as a result, these regions of the very early universe ... Whether there is a god is a question entirely on the ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
Loading