In the last few years the belief that our existence is a mere cosmic accident is losing ground based on discoveries that point to the fact that our universe favors the appearance of life. Humans, by existing alone, already jeopardise the deterministic (macroscopically at least) nature of the universe because of their free will. I mean, simply based on the laws of nature you would not be able to explain the existence of a man-made orbiting satellite. This seems to highlight a shadow of a purpose in the universe. Do you agree? Are there any implications for religions or future frameworks of science?

I'm posting to bring this to the first page because of some similar recent threads and I'd like to see some answers. Sorry if it's against the rules to do this...

quote:In the last few years the belief that our existence is a mere cosmic accident is losing ground based on discoveries that point to the fact that our universe favors the appearance of life.

Losing ground? The past few years have done the opposite! More genetic and fossil evidence supporting evolution. More astronomical evidence supporting the Big Bang...

quote:. Humans, by existing alone, already jeopardise the deterministic (macroscopically at least) nature of the universe because of their free will. I mean, simply based on the laws of nature you would not be able to explain the existence of a man-made orbiting satellite.

And why not? Evolution already does so, and evolution, like I've said above, has strengthened over the past years, not weakened.

quote: This seems to highlight a shadow of a purpose in the universe. Do you agree?

No, as there's absolutely no evidence supporting this, at least none that cannot already be explained by evolution.

Evolution, even though it makes perfect sense to me, is not a "law of nature" but a theory. And you didn't address the only thing I hoped for, that the universe favors life. How is the Big Bang against life?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Evolution, even though it makes perfect sense to me, is not a "law of nature" but a theory.

That the Earth revolves round the Sun? That's a theory. Everything in Science is technically a theory, even so called "laws", since everything (even these "laws") are potentially falsifiable.

Thus, that it is a theory does not support your argument in anyway.

Moreover, you haven't even told us what you consider a "laws of nature" yet.

quote:

And you didn't address the only thing I hoped for, that the universe favors life. How is the Big Bang against life?

I didn't address it because it seemed to me you didn't put any importance in it. In any case the answer is, it isn't. And the universe doesn't favor life.

I'm replying against your notion that somehow Science has been "losing ground", while intelligent design, or whatever you refer to when you say"a shadow of a purpose", is 'gaining ground' which is false.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I didn't address it because it seemed to me you didn't put any importance in it. In any case the answer is, it isn't. And the universe doesn't favor life.

I'm replying against your notion that somehow Science has been "losing ground", while intelligent design, or whatever you refer to when you say"a shadow of a purpose", is 'gaining ground' which is false.

About "laws of nature" I mean just that. Anything that science has proclaimed as Law. Conservation of energy and momentum, the laws of thermodynamics etc. OK, even if Evolution is just a theory is irrelevant to my argument because I'm discussing about the appearance of life and Evolution takes effect after this event.

I never implied that Science is losing ground. I don't think Science has any worthy enemies to lose ground from http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) But I think it is a fact that certain constants like the strength of the 4 physical forces or the rate of expansion of the universe are such that a minor deviation from them would lead to an empty universe and no life. That's a clear scientific finding and that's what I'm asking about. I'm not talking about intelligent design. I'm very simply talking about purpose; the final "why" of the many that science asks.

Elf, really, that 4 forces crap is BS, and so is the rate of expansion. Changes in those two would not necessarily result in a lifeless and empty universe, just one in which the organization is different, and in which life may not exist, or it may. The universe doesn't 'favor' anything. Life is possible in the Universe as it is, so it exists...there are surely many more combinations of forces that can sustain life.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

About "laws of nature" I mean just that. Anything that science has proclaimed as Law. Conservation of energy and momentum, the laws of thermodynamics etc. OK, even if Evolution is just a theory is irrelevant to my argument because I'm discussing about the appearance of life and Evolution takes effect after this event.

Actually, you asked how could I explain a man made satallite orbiting Earth (i.e. how it was possible that we evolved and created such thing); the answer? Evolution explains it quite well.



quote: But I think it is a fact that certain constants like the strength of the 4 physical forces or the rate of expansion of the universe are such that a minor deviation from them would lead to an empty universe and no life. That's a clear scientific finding and that's what I'm asking about. I'm not talking about intelligent design. I'm very simply talking about purpose; the final "why" of the many that science asks.

Hexadecimal covered this, so see his post.

Rust, I wasn't asking about that. I was saying that the existence of intelligence shatters determinism in the universe. If you follow the journey of an electron since the Big Bang using all the laws of physics with tremendous accuracy you could not predict its appearance in the molecule of a metal that makes up the satellite. Evolution doesn't enter in this discussion because it cannot predict the actions of intelligent beings. My speculation is that if the universe is unpredictable in this way, then a way to make it predictable is find a purpose for it. That's how you predict the actions of an intelligent being, you try to guess its purpose. BTW, I'm writing for discussion's sake, I'm not trying to prove God or anything like that.

Could I have a link about what Hexadecimal said? What I'm saying I got from my astronomy teacher in university. Maybe she was wrong, or there are new discoveries since then (it was like 3 years ago).

In favor of the deists here, I would say nothing in science can disprove a god existing in hard, factual, evidence. There is just no way.

Atheism is logical.

Why?

Because lack of evidence is not evidence in itself, but is reason to believe that the inevidenced subject is false.



There is as much proof as for a god as for undetectable purple cows which fly behind clouds.

Now, by the false logic people use for believeing in a god, we could also believe in these cows.

Prove the cows don't exist, prove that god doesn't exist. Otherwise, by the logic of theists, the cows also exist. And by the logic of the agnostics, the cows might exist.





Anyway, for those who are religious, you cannot debate faith, as, by definition, it is not debatable.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Rust, I wasn't asking about that. I was saying that the existence of intelligence shatters determinism in the universe. If you follow the journey of an electron since the Big Bang using all the laws of physics with tremendous accuracy you could not predict its appearance in the molecule of a metal that makes up the satellite. Evolution doesn't enter in this discussion because it cannot predict the actions of intelligent beings.

You said, explain, not predict, they are two different things.

quote:

My speculation is that if the universe is unpredictable in this way, then a way to make it predictable is find a purpose for it. That's how you predict the actions of an intelligent being, you try to guess its purpose.

How is the universe "intelligent"?

quote:

Could I have a link about what Hexadecimal said? What I'm saying I got from my astronomy teacher in university. Maybe she was wrong, or there are new discoveries since then (it was like 3 years ago).

What he was arguing is that some change, however small it may be, can still be possible in these constants, and withhold life as we see it know. Moreover, we cannot conclude that no life would be able to arise, since we would be basing ourselves in the life forms we see know (i.e. Carbon); other types are possible. For example, there are organisms that do not breathe Oxygen, but other molecules (i.e. Nitrogen).

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm

You can search for the Anthropic principle in google.

If there's the possibility for other universes, then it may be that life only came up on a few of them. And of course, nobody is going to be observing a universe that doesn't support life, so it isn't anything special that the universe we live in supports life, even if the probability of it is slim.

On the other hand, if there is only one universe, then it may be due to the fractal nature of the universe. Or it could be that those constants are based on an inherent property of existence. But blaming it on some higher being doesn't seem too rational to me, because you'd have to figure out where/how that being came into existence, which is even worse than figuring out the same thing for the universe.

To Rust:

1. Sorry, I used a wrong word.

2. It's not really, but the existence of intelligence in it gives it the property of unpredictability. Basically, I am asking "is there a purpose for the presence of intelligence in the universe?". And for discussion's sake, who do you think will answer it first, science or religion?

3. Thanks, that's the kind of feedback I was expecting. Some very good points there.