I will prove god's existence if....

@Data phil,

Data wrote:

Based on the first premise, that which is able to effect the chemical reactions to continue must be driven from an energy source of some sort. It can be argued with plant life that the chemical reaction of photosynthesis is nothing more than a complex orchestration of electrolysis of water and chemical reaction of carbon and hydrogen. However, animal life does not appreciate the benefit of photons of light exciting their molecules to trigger chemical response. Animal life accomplish persistent and pervasive chemical reactions, with a net yield that exceeds its input. Hence, the equation is not equal. More comes out that goes in!

I don't see more coming out as went in. The fact that plants harvest so much of the sun's energy (a mere fraction of what hits the earth, but a great deal nevertheless) and the fact that most animals get most if not all their energy from plants (by digesting them) means that the sun is an adequate explanation for the energy needed to provide fuel for the vast majority of life on earth. Herbivores get their energy from plants, and carnivores get their energy from herbivores.

There are some exceptions - such as the species that feed (directly or indirectly) from deep sea hot vents. But the sun gives us more than enough energy to power the greater part of life as we know it.

You are right that the equation isn't equal - but I think wrong in your conclusion - the truth is that more energy comes in than is absorbed, because the methods of absorption are not 100% efficient (this is why we defecate).

This might seem quite staggering - but to get a better appreciation of the scale think of the film of algae or fungus and other tiny organisms that you might find on an old discarded wooden ball. It's easy to see how the sun alone could provide energy for such growth. The ammount of biomass on the ball is relatively large compared to that of the earth (the analogy doesn't quite work as the ball itself provides more relative nourishment - but I hope you can see what I'm striving for).

0 Replies

@Data phil,

Data wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that it is commonly accepted fact that the ammount of calories supplied by Producers isn't enough to fuel Consumers.

Is this right or have I got things mixed up?

If this is what you are suggesting it would fly in the face of everything I have ever learnt on the subject - as far as I know energy is wasted as it travels up the food chain - as the following link explains:

Food Chains

Quote:

The Pyramid of Energy

Conversions efficiencies are always much less than 100%. At each link in a food chain, a substantial portion of the sun's energy - originally trapped by a photosynthesizing autotroph - is dissipated back to the environment (ultimately as heat).

Thus it follows that the total amount of energy stored in the bodies of a given population is dependent on its trophic level.

For example, the total amount of energy in a population of toads must necessarily be far less than that in the insects on which they feed.
The insects, in turn, have only a fraction of the energy stored in the plants on which they feed.

This decrease in the total available energy at each higher trophic level is called the pyramid of energy.

Using Odum's data on net productivity at the various levels in Silver Springs, we get this pyramid. The figures represent net production at each trophic level expressed in kcal/m2/yr.

In other words only about one sixth of the energy provided in the example ecosystem by producers is needed to fuel herbivores, and less than one fifteenth of that energy then goes on to fuel carnivores.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

I appreciate what you are saying and im grateful that you do realise we have no idea of what dead or alive is in the plant world...my problem with science is they can understand life chemically but have no idea how to reproduce the simplest life forms..My question is if life was a forgone conclusion when the BB event occured and the BB by accepted science is the first event that has ever occured, is it not worth pondering on the notion that life is engineered?.This chance upon chance upon chance in my opinion has to be considered as circumstantial evidence..

I suppose - but why would pondering whether life was engineered be of any more worth than pondering whether it was an accident?

Surely if one seeks to demonstrate the need for an engineer one must demonstrate why arguments that point out that it might have been arrived at by accident are false?

I doubt most scientists would say, by the way, that the Big Bang was "the first ever event", or that life was a foregone conclusion of the Big Bang (we have the benefit of hindsight with that one). "Earliest widely accepted event in the life of the universe" might come close.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

I suppose - but why would pondering whether life was engineered be of any more worth than pondering whether it was an accident?

Surely if one seeks to demonstrate the need for an engineer one must demonstrate why arguments that point out that it might have been arrived at by accident are false?

I doubt most scientists would say, by the way, that the Big Bang was "the first ever event", or that life was a foregone conclusion of the Big Bang (we have the benefit of hindsight with that one). "Earliest widely accepted event in the life of the universe" might come close.

The majority of scientists would say that the BB was the first event...what evidence is there that even remotely suggests otherwise? As for it being a foregone conclusion what do think would happen if we replayed the whole event again ? would it be any different? your saying if i throw a ball in the air it might not come down..Im not claiming i know it was engineered but i am asking the question..is it wrong to ask?

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

A lot of scientists theorise that the universe is part of a multiverse, which would mean the Big Bang wasn't the first event. Others theorise that the Big Bang only came after a Big Crunch - suggesting that there was another universe before this one. There is no real common scientific consensus on what the first event was - and some of the leaps of faith required to believe some of the theories proposed strike me as being near religious in scope.

So I'm not personally suggesting that there is any evidence that anything came before the Big Bang - just pointing out that the scientific community (such as it is) do not all agree about it being the first ever event.

I believe the ball will fall again - but chaos theory and certain philosophical lines of inquiry (such as phenomenology) say that it can't be a strict given. I'm not sure it's a good analogy anyway - a ball behaving according to the laws of gravity is a much simpler event than the creation of the universe and of life-bearing worlds therein.

Chaos theory, in particular, would seem to suggest that the universe could have formed in an innumerable variety of ways. As I said we know life did occur (because we are among it) but does that necessarily mean one could be present at a Big Bang type of event and say "life will result from this" - I don't think it can be stated with certainty.

As for whether or not it's 'wrong' to ask, well, no - but is it 'wrong' to counter with another question? You asked if it was worth considering whether or not life was engineered - I think it is but I perceive some bias in that line of enquiry - because nothing in this thread seems to make engineering look more likely than accident, to my eyes.

So to propose an engineer without also acknowledging accident strikes me as partizan and I was (politely enough, I felt) attempting to redress the balance.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Theories are OK if they can be proved and the only common theory that has any proof is the BB...multiverses .torus universe all have their promoters but none have the visible evidence that the BB has..Can you tell me why life has occured ? I dont mind how you answer but you must tell me if with the present universe can it occur again...
I dont understand how you can have two different occurences with different outcome..any experiment carried out in exactly the same way should result in the same outcome..If the formula for life is written into the universe how will not occur by that formula ?Life is not accident by its formula it can only occur when the conditions are right..
I believe by common knowledge the universe was the first ever event and life was inevitable as soon as that event occured...the formula for life was written into that event..now im not saying it was designed but it could be said that it is a possiblity..its feasible..

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Three key theories - quantum mechanics, string theory and cosmic inflation - converge on the idea of taking the multiverse theory seriously (according to an article in this week's New Scientist - page 48 if you have a copy to hand). I don't think 'proof' of these disciplines is something I would like to try and clarify here - I'm no expert on them. I suggest wikipedia as the next stop if you're really that curious.

As I said I thought some of the theories out there required almost 'religious' leaps of faith to believe in. I'm not really advocating multiverse theory - just pointing out that a lot of scientists do advocate it and they therefore by no means view the Big Bang as the first event.

I see you are now saying it's 'common knowledge' that the Big Bang was the first event. I suppose this might be true if we are to take 'common knowledge' to mean that which is understood by people we would call educated and/or westerners - even then a lot of religious people or those who show an interest in science would stress that they don't quite see it like that. I don't really see why common knowledge even has to come into it - you wouldn't ask the man on the street to remove your appendix, I reckon - you'd go to a relative expert - so why take his word over that of physicists on the subject of cosmology?

Lots of duplicate experiments throw up different results - Chaos Theory explains why. The more complex an experiment the less likely it is that it will have exactly the same result when repeated. Many people think science should stick to the sort of simple experiments that can be performed in school classrooms with bunsen burners and the like - but any theory such as those about the history and structure of the universe can only ever be theoretical. This doesn't mean they are unscientific though.

I don't think theories are 'OK if they can be proved' - I think they are OK if they can't be disproved and if the burden of evidence supports their case over that of rival theories. If you think differently why even invoke the Big bang? There is no way to 'prove' the Big Bang in the same way that one can prove the oxidisation of copper - it's just that the evidence for the prosecution looks pretty damning.

Yes it is possible that life may have been designed - it is also possible that life derived from accident. What I am trying to do is understand why you repeatedly propose a designer rather than an accident. Even if I did agree with your assertion that the Big Bang was the first thing ever and that everything that happened subsequently could have been predicted at that point (and I don't) I still don't see why a designer need be invoked - a happy accident strikes me as just as likely an explanation.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Cosmologists would teach you that the universe started with the bb and that there is no evidence of a before the bb..now if you are disputing that ide ask what evidence..not theory..are you accounting to ,to make this assumption? Ide also ask you again given the right circumstances do you think life is possible, again and again?

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

It simply is not true to say "Cosmologists would teach you that the universe started with the bb and that there is no evidence of a before the bb". I suspect they would have a variety of different responses ranging from not being interested in the universe's history so much as as it is now, to being quite open to multiverse theory. I know of a fair few Cosmologists who can't see an account for Black Holes without multiverse theory.

Once again you seem to me to be suggesting that theory isn't something scientists should be delving into unless it is demonstrable. As I wrote earlier I think theories are OK if they can't be disproved and if the burden of evidence supports their case over that of rival theories. If you think differently why even invoke the Big Bang?

It's possible that life would be possible in the right circumstances (of course it would be) - but I don't think it would necessarily be a given - because of Chaos Theory.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Your fudging the issue..cosmologists agree that there is at the moment no other evidence..now i will ask you again what evidence is there of an alternative theory being valid.....Who said anything about chaos theory not me...im saying that because of this universe, life is formulated into its make up..can you deny this?

1 Reply

@xris,

I don't understand how I am fudging the issue - perhaps you can reclarify your position?

You started by making sweeping generalisations about scientists - then you began making them about the common man - now you are doing the same about cosmologists. Why not just accept the truth of the matter - which is that a number of sometimes competing ideas about the start of the universe exist and are viewed by such people with varying degrees of weight?

There is no point asking me again what alternative theory might be valid - I have already given two - mulitverse theory and the Big Crunch.

I brought up chaos theory a few times in my last few posts - read them again and then maybe you might understand it's relevence in terms of why a given set of circumstances may not engender the same results twice in a row.

There is no necessary need to view life as part of the formula of the universe if it is an accident. I am willing to accept that the probability of life forming under certain conditions is high. I cannot deny it - but I don't see how it can be asserted as an ineluctable truth.

Instead of answering questions such as "why do you think a designer is more relevant than an accident" you simply pile on the pressure for proof of the alternative. But seeing as your own position is one that has no hard evidence (and that you have repeatedly misrepresented facts and pretended that various general groups of experts support your view when they do not) it strikes me that your repeated demands for proof of the alternative is ingenuous. Some people think one way, others others - so what?

It seems to me that you are trying to build an arguement for a designer up from the belief that life would have been a predictable and inescapable outcome of the Big Bang - yet despite requiring other people to come up with proof for anything that might confuse this view point you don't seem to offer any real proof yourself. In fact the only evidence you seem to offer is that "scientists say X" - which isn't true anyway. All you offer is a vague theory of the sort that you seem to suggest 'doesn't count' when offered up as a counter arguement.

In short - I don't feel I am fudging the issue at all - I think you are attempting to build an arguement based on misrepresenting what scientists/common people/cosmologists/etc believe and I have offered reasons as to why with a certain degree of proofing of my own.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

If you are refusing to accept fact from theory i just dont know what else to say...you take words i use and place them, out of context with my statement as if it makes them invalid..you say something is impossible but then say it is possible...Ive asked on many occassions for you to give me a theory other than the BB that has any evidence of significance to sustain them..So you give me any reason why better than us have discredited the bb on any observed evidence..

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

xris, even if there were no alternative theories to the Big Bang, the nature of theoretical astrophysics is such that there ARE many revisions that have happened and continue to happen. Studying the Big Bang is kind of like studying dinosaur behavior -- large theories are deduced from broken and scant evidence. It's no wonder that a small new bit of data can grossly change the theory -- it's a big pendulum but it changes direction with a hair trigger.

So the Big Bang, in general, is accepted within scientific communities. But there is a lot that is NOT universally held about the Big Bang, and what's clear is that the evidence is imperfect and subject to interpretation -- and always subject to change. This includes theories about what (if anything) preceded it.

Which leads me to ask how you can feel so secure in one particular interpretation of theoretical astrophysics that you would go on to generate a complex metaphysical theory from it? I mean if the entire scientific concensus revises itself in a couple years, will that destroy your hypothesis?

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

xris, even if there were no alternative theories to the Big Bang, the nature of theoretical astrophysics is such that there ARE many revisions that have happened and continue to happen. Studying the Big Bang is kind of like studying dinosaur behavior -- large theories are deduced from broken and scant evidence. It's no wonder that a small new bit of data can grossly change the theory -- it's a big pendulum but it changes direction with a hair trigger.

So the Big Bang, in general, is accepted within scientific communities. But there is a lot that is NOT universally held about the Big Bang, and what's clear is that the evidence is imperfect and subject to interpretation -- and always subject to change. This includes theories about what (if anything) preceded it.

Which leads me to ask how you can feel so secure in one particular interpretation of theoretical astrophysics that you would go on to generate a complex metaphysical theory from it? I mean if the entire scientific concensus revises itself in a couple years, will that destroy your hypothesis?

not to try to speak for anyone here, but I feel that niggling desire to comment:D
For as start it would be unscientific to revise our viewpoint before contrary evidence had emerged, and simply saying it might is meingless.
Even if some reason behind the big bang was found, surely it would simply leave us with the same situation but with regards to reasons for this reason. Is there an infinite series of reasons? If this is so how can it make scintific sense, as scince, at least in theory, should be a limited system at some point.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

If you are refusing to accept fact from theory i just dont know what else to say..

To repeat my point... You seem to be advocating certain theories (the Big Bang, the theory that life was predictable at the event of the Big Bang, the theory that a designer is plausable because life was predictable at the Big Bang - all theories) but dismissing others (the universe is one of many, there was a Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang - also theories).

If for nothing more than consistency why not either accept that theories are valid in an of themselves provided some degree of credibility is attached to them - or dismiss all theory unless is it backed up by a great deal of evidence.

Otherwise it seems like you operate under a "one rule for me, another rule for you" standard (ie: your theory of life being preditable at the event of the Big Bang leads to the plausibility of an engineer strikes you as kosher - but multiple universes does not).

Quote:

you take words i use and place them, out of context with my statement as if it makes them invalid.

At least once I asked you to reclarify - you didn't - what am i supposed to do? Either explain why I am mistaken or accept that I will probably continue to see the debate my way.

Quote:

you say something is impossible but then say it is possible.

I'm not sure where I have done this - if I have i apologise. Can you explain why i have given you this impression and I will attempt to clarify the matter.

Quote:

Ive asked on many occassions for you to give me a theory other than the BB that has any evidence of significance to sustain them..So you give me any reason why better than us have discredited the bb on any observed evidence..

I do think the two theories I have already given are credible in that they remain subjects of excited scientific speculation - I even pointed to a page in this week's New Scientist magazine that offers further speculation on multiverses.

Again - one rule for you and another for me - you are happy to accept the theory of the Big Bang but not Big Crunch or multiverse - despite the fact that the three are, to varying degrees, subjects of debate within the scientific community.

2 Replies

@Dave Allen,

But what would cause the multiverse? You can make the numbers and the sizes as big as you want, but how does this change the burning need for an answer to Why? as opposed to just another How?

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

not to try to speak for anyone here, but I feel that niggling desire to comment:D
For as start it would be unscientific to revise our viewpoint before contrary evidence had emerged, and simply saying it might is meingless.
Even if some reason behind the big bang was found, surely it would simply leave us with the same situation but with regards to reasons for this reason. Is there an infinite series of reasons? If this is so how can it make scintific sense, as scince, at least in theory, should be a limited system at some point.

Scientists (insomuch as they are a group) tend to arrive at limited systems through subjecting theories to examination and testing (so far as they can).

So yes, i don't see there being anything particularly unscientific about theorising about an infinite loop of causes for causes - but the theories that sit with known observables are the ones that get most of the attention.

The fact that string theory, cosmic inflation and quantum mechanics all gel nicely with multiverse theory is what gives multiverse theory greater weight than (for example) my theory that the big bang was the collosal fart of a giant ant.

Aedes may be able to summarise with greater alacrity, though. I'm not really much of a science buff.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Scientists (insomuch as they are a group) tend to arrive at limited systems through subjecting theories to examination and testing (so far as they can).

So yes, i don't see there being anything particularly unscientific about theorising about an infinite loop of causes for causes - but the theories that sit with known observables are the ones that get most of the attention.

The fact that string theory, cosmic inflation and quantum mechanics all gel nicely with multiverse theory is what gives multiverse theory greater weight than (for example) my theory that the big bang was the collosal fart of a giant ant.

Aedes may be able to summarise with greater alacrity, though. I'm not really much of a science buff.

But why the cycle?

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

For as start it would be unscientific to revise our viewpoint before contrary evidence had emerged

Revision is one of the signatures of science -- that's why we have peer review processes. Our current interpretations of evidence are imperfect and may benefit from reexamination even in the absence of new evidence. I mean did Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo have particularly different evidence than Ptolemy? No -- they just thought about it differently.

Don't confuse data with interpretation. The data are out there for all of us, but that doesn't stop people from having disagreements, or from new interpretations to become mainstream.

Quote:

and simply saying it might is meingless.

Seeing as everything else in the history of science has been revised in some way or another, it's hardly meaningless. Everything gets revised as we learn more.

Quote:

Even if some reason behind the big bang was found, surely it would simply leave us with the same situation but with regards to reasons for this reason. Is there an infinite series of reasons? If this is so how can it make scintific sense, as scince, at least in theory, should be a limited system at some point.

I don't understand this insatiable need for everything to have a reason or a purpose-- I mean get over it, things can be without having a reason.

Dave is 100% correct about one thing that I have mentioned before myself:

If you are going to make philosophical arguments based on science, then the strength of your argument will live or die with your understanding of the science. And if you are arbitrarily selective about what science you accept and which you don't, and this selection is NOT based on your own careful review of evidence and methodology, then your philosophical derivatives are nothing but sophistry. In other words, you're using scientific words without using science. That's fine as long as you're authentic about it, but I don't sense that authenticity. You're just picking what's convenient.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

But why the cycle?

As I think Aedes said - there is no peculiar need for it - it's just that some are comfortable with the idea that there may be a cycle - others fancy a first cause.

Calling that first cause God or the Big bang satisfies many - others like to acknowledge theories that suggest other things.

I'm personally happy enough not to know (I don't think one can 'know') and am prepared to live and let live on the issue - but when others claim a distinct preference for one or the other I would rather understand why.

My only real beef is summed up nicely in Aedes' last point - it seems a common tactic to misrepresent science when using it to back up a position of faith. I would rather science and religious belief were kept seperate spheres. One is (as a trend) commentary on observables, the other (as a trend) is musing on the unknowable.

Because religion tends to stake out the unknowable I feel it sometimes suffers a threat from science - because science gradually eats into the unknowable. However, whenever religion tries to justify it's stances through science I tend to get rather protective - because I feel it tends to pervert or belittle scientific thought. Creationism in particular is guilty of this, I feel.

1 Reply

I will prove god's existence if....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know