Universe

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

seaco711

Senior Member
#21
Dec 30, 2009
104
0
0
#21
tek said:

When scientists say a universe is life-permitting...


The fundamental problem here is that the chances that the universe that exists sould happen to be life-permitting are so remote that this alternative becomes unreasonable...
Click to expand...
To point 1, again, that is the manner of converting to food into energy and reproducing as we know it. There could be any number of other (equally valid) manners in which life (even defined this way) could spring up that we just don't know about.

To point 2, let me give you a counter-example. Suppose you did the drawing of ping-pong balls that you mentioned. Chances of getting the black ball are indeed low. Now suppose you did it 100 billion times (representing the theory of multiple [nearly an infinite number of] universes). Now, chances become much greater, and even approach a probability of 1. I'm not saying that I agree with this theory, per se, but it's just an interesting consideration.
 
C

Colours

Banned
#22
Dec 6, 2012
213
0
0
#22
seaco711 said:
Again, matter as we know it would most likely not exist with another form of atom. But a different form of atom could totally create a form of matter (and then life) that we haven't even fathomed. There's no denying that the tolerances in our universe are extremely (incredibly) low, but it just doesn't mean there is only one type of existence.
Click to expand...
That's also true.

But think of this, how did matter and energy even come to be created at all?

Laws of physics:

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

So, it is therefore theoretically impossible for something to come from nothing without a creator.
 
S

seaco711

Senior Member
#23
Dec 30, 2009
104
0
0
#23
There are plenty of theories, such as quantum fluctuations, a constant expanding/collapsing universe, balancing out of positive energy and matter with dark energy and matter (thus resulting in a total energy of zero), etc. etc. Point being, the two options are not 1) some god created the universe or 2) there would be no universe. There's a third: god didn't create it but we just don't understand how it happened yet.
 
C

Colours

Banned
#24
Dec 6, 2012
213
0
0
#24
seaco711 said:
There are plenty of theories, such as quantum fluctuations, a constant expanding/collapsing universe, balancing out of positive energy and matter with dark energy and matter (thus resulting in a total energy of zero), etc. etc. Point being, the two options are not 1) some god created the universe or 2) there would be no universe. There's a third: god didn't create it but we just don't understand how it happened yet.
Click to expand...
Yea I think it's feasible but doesn't the concept of dark matter require that there is visible matter which it can give mass to?
 
T

tek

Banned
#25
Sep 25, 2012
283
2
0
#25
seaco711 said:
To point 1, again, that is the manner of converting to food into energy and reproducing as we know it. There could be any number of other (equally valid) manners in which life (even defined this way) could spring up that we just don't know about.
Click to expand...
converting food into energy, reproducing and so on is actually just a definition of the word “life”. That’s what “life” means. That’s what “life” is all about. Any other “manners” is basically a “non-life”
Besides in the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter, not even chemistry would exist, much less planets where life might evolve

seaco711 said:
(representing the theory of multiple [nearly an infinite number of] universes).
Click to expand...

one of the objections to many worlds hypothesis is that multiverse itself also involves fine-tuning. For in order to be scientifically credible, some plausible mechanism must be suggested for generating the many worlds. But if the many worlds hypothesis is to be successful in attributing fine-tuning to chance alone, then the mechanism that generates the many worlds had better be fine-tuned itself. For if it is, then the problem arises all over again: How do you explain the fine-tuning of the multiverse.
 
C

Colours

Banned
#26
Dec 6, 2012
213
0
0
#26
tek said:


converting food into energy, reproducing and so on is actually just a definition of the word “life”. That’s what “life” means. That’s what “life” is all about. Any other “manners” is basically a “non-life”
Besides in the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter, not even chemistry would exist, much less planets where life might evolve




one of the objections to many worlds hypothesis is that multiverse itself also involves fine-tuning. For in order to be scientifically credible, some plausible mechanism must be suggested for generating the many worlds. But if the many worlds hypothesis is to be successful in attributing fine-tuning to chance alone, then the mechanism that generates the many worlds had better be fine-tuned itself. For if it is, then the problem arises all over again: How do you explain the fine-tuning of the multiverse.
Click to expand...
Ahh, this is deep. I like it.
 
S

seaco711

Senior Member
#33
Dec 30, 2009
104
0
0
#33
carolineh said:
why would you think or say that?
Click to expand...
Because you can't just dispute everything scientists have discovered and conclusions they have come to over the past few hundred years. Let me ask you this Caroline (I'm assuming that's your name): How much astronomy have you studied? Do you even know the theories that scientists purport? If you actually read and studied what current prevailing theories are, you would see that they're not so ridiculous.
 
C

carolineh

Banned
#34
Sep 10, 2012
758
4
0
#34
seaco711 said:
Because you can't just dispute everything scientists have discovered and conclusions they have come to over the past few hundred years. Let me ask you this Caroline (I'm assuming that's your name): How much astronomy have you studied? Do you even know the theories that scientists purport? If you actually read and studied what current prevailing theories are, you would see that they're not so ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Dr Kent Hovind does not dispute everything scientists have discovered...you need to click on the link I gave to stop your nonsense
 
T

tek

Banned
#35
Sep 25, 2012
283
2
0
#35
seaco711 said:
Because you can't just dispute everything scientists have discovered and conclusions they have come to over the past few hundred years. Let me ask you this Caroline (I'm assuming that's your name): How much astronomy have you studied? Do you even know the theories that scientists purport? If you actually read and studied what current prevailing theories are, you would see that they're not so ridiculous.
Click to expand...
he never said they are ridiculous, just go to his website, here it is

ReasonableFaith.org
 
S

seaco711

Senior Member
#36
Dec 30, 2009
104
0
0
#36
carolineh said:
Dr Kent Hovind does not dispute everything scientists have discovered...you need to click on the link I gave to stop your nonsense
Click to expand...
In the video I watched he said that the big bang didn't occur, earth didn't develop as scientists say that it did, we didn't evolve as scientists say that we did, dinosaurs were here on earth at the same time humans were, Noah took dinosaurs on the ark, etc. etc. That sounds like a lot of disputing to me.
 
C

carolineh

Banned
#37
Sep 10, 2012
758
4
0
#37
seaco711 said:
In the video I watched he said that the big bang didn't occur, earth didn't develop as scientists say that it did, we didn't evolve as scientists say that we did, dinosaurs were here on earth at the same time humans were, Noah took dinosaurs on the ark, etc. etc. That sounds like a lot of disputing to me.
Click to expand...
there are many categories of scientists in the world today and Dr Kent Hovind totally agrees with operational scientists but has valid arguments with scientists who claim to know the origin of the universe and earth without approaching it in a scientific manner but rather in a religiious or philosophical manner..scientists are to remain scientific and go by observable evidence and be able to reproduce that observable evidence and not go by their own imaginings or imagination..going by their own imaginings or imagination is completely unscientific and that is what raises objections in the mind of those who do think analytically, critically and scientifically
 
C

carolineh

Banned
#38
Sep 10, 2012
758
4
0
#38
there is ample evidence to say that dinosaurs were here on earth at the same time as humans and did you know scientists have uncovered a TRex femur bone with blood and soft tissue still in it? hardly millions of years old
 
S

seaco711

Senior Member
#39
Dec 30, 2009
104
0
0
#39
carolineh said:
there are many categories of scientists in the world today and Dr Kent Hovind totally agrees with operational scientists but has valid arguments with scientists who claim to know the origin of the universe and earth without approaching it in a scientific manner but rather in a religiious or philosophical manner..scientists are to remain scientific and go by observable evidence and be able to reproduce that observable evidence and not go by their own imaginings or imagination..going by their own imaginings or imagination is completely unscientific and that is what raises objections in the mind of those who do think analytically, critically and scientifically
Click to expand...
Again, how much of evolution theory have you read? There's no way to "prove" it, because there's no way to recreate the big bang in a lab. However, every scientific test and study that is performed only confirms current theory.
And yes, I read about the T-Rex bone. However, although rare, soft tissue in bones is not impossible. They estimated the age of the bone at ~70 million years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.