The state of online Christian vs. Atheist debates, more often than not:

"I'm a Bible believing Christian who believes that God became a man, while also being a ghost, and the man-part was born and lived in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago, but not really part-man, but fully-man AND also fully-God (editor's note: the fully-ghost part of god rarely gets a mention here) and the fully-man part (but remember, not just a part) always existed despite being born during the aforementioned time period, and the man-god lived a perfect life only to be killed by the Romans as predicted, and then - spoiler - came back to life, by which I mean he rose up to heaven to be at God's right hand, even though God doesn't have hands and exists everywhere...

That's why today I'll be arguing why everything that begins to exist must have a cause"

I was taught in freshman physics not to believe in the strong anthropic principle. How arrogant and egostical to believe that the universe was created just for you! No right thinking person since Darwin has believed this! Science! Straighten up and fly right!

It took me many years to recover from this forced indoctrination.

You wouldn't think either was likely, but presumably it must be one or the other.
The way the universe comes together it seems unlikely that it was an accident, so that leaves design but by who or what and for what reason!

Its all very strange and I very much doubt humans can ever know.

Or it just means some underlying symmetry we don’t yet understand. The “fine tuning” could simply be a manifestation of some deeper phenomenon that determines the values of the physical constants of the universe.

Plus, it’s always states that the conditions that align to produce life are unlikely. Is that really true? That seems like an assertion without evidence to me. Sure things had to be the way they are to produce life as we know it, but do we really know enough about how life developed to conclusively state that other conditions might not have allowed life to form? It would be different life, to be sure, but still, there may be a broad range for life formation.

That’s not even considering the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics or the possibility of other inflationary bubbles beyond the horizon of our observable universe. Both of these raise the possibility that there are other spacetimes which may or may not have the same conditions as ours. Given multiple opportunities, it becomes much less unlikely that a spacetime with the proper conditions for life would exist.

stremba70:

You are dodging all three of my questions and doing a poor job of talking your way around them.

Something tells me you realize the implication of the questions. Below, as a reminder, are those same three simple questions, but this time, I have rephrased them to make it possible for you to give a simple "YES" or "NO" answer.


QUESTION #1 TO stremba70: ALL of the first 60 discovered naturally occurring elements on the Periodic Table are precise--indicating deliberation. Are you saying this was not the result of deliberation by an intelligent being? YES or NO

QUESTION #2 TO stremba70: Did the first 60 discovered naturally occurring elements on the Periodic Table accidentally or spontaneously reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms? YES or NO


QUESTION #3 TO stremba70: Are you saying there was not any need for the deliberate intervention of an intelligent being in order for the first 60 discovered naturally occurring elements on the Periodic Table to come into existence? YES or NO


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

I’m trying to explain why this isn’t the “gotcha” you think it is. The regularities in the elements arise naturally from natural phenomena, ones very similar to the regularities that underlie the functioning of musical instruments, namely the behavior of standing waves in an energetically bound system. Like I said, quantum mechanics is way too complex to deal with here, but the observed properties of ALL the elements are well explained by it, including the lack of regularities in elements after the filling of the 4f energy level. I’m not sure how much clearer you need me to be: there is no need for God, Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Krishna, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other mythical, imaginary being, to explain the properties of the elements. The properties of the elements are not accidental, but instead reflect the underlying wave properties of the electrons in their atoms. That doesn’t indicate design, just physical symmetries that we know pervade the universe and make science possible.

Now I’ve answered your questions, answer mine:

1. If the elements were designed, why does the pattern of regularities break down for the elements heavier than the lanthanides? Did God get bored and just want to shake things up or what?

2. If animals are designed, why are there animals that live entirely in the ocean, but have no gills and therefore could potentially drown if they can’t get to the surface to breathe periodically? What kind of incompetent boob would put gills in fish and other sea creatures, but forget to give gills to whales and dolphins?

stremba70:

Everyone reading this thread expected you to dodge my three questions for a second time.

Nuff said.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

How did I dodge. The regularities you seem so impressed with are manifestations of quantum mechanics and the wave nature of electrons. There is no need to invoke a deity or any other intelligence to explain them. I’m not sure how I can answer you more clearly.

Question 1 - yes, the regularities in the first 60 elements are not the result of deliberation by an intelligent being.

Question 2 - yes, the regularities occur because f underlying symmetries of the universe. This occurs spontaneously due to the underlying physical laws governing electrons bound to nuclei

Question 3 - no, there was no need for a deity to allow creation of the first 60 elements (or any others). The first three were created by the formation of matter antimatter pairs from energetic gamma rays in the first fraction of a second following the Big Bang. This resulted in formation of quarks and electrons. Quarks eventually condensed into protons and neutrons, as governed by the strong force. Once the universe cooled sufficiently, nuclei of helium and lithium formed. Upon further cooling electrons became bound to the free protons and these nuclei forming hydrogen helium and a small amount of lithium. The rest of the elements formed by fusion reactions in stars (elements up to iron) and supernovae (heavier than iron). None of this required divine intervention.

There - I’ve answered your questions clearly and unambiguously; no deity or intelligent being is needed to explain the elements. Care to stop dodging now and answer mine:

Question 1 - If the regularities in the first 60 elements are indicative of intelligent design, why do those regularities break down for heavier elements? If regularities are indicative of design, would lack of regularities not indicate lack of design? Or did God just get bored after making 60 or so elements and decide to shake things up?

Question 2 — why don’t whales and dolphins have gills? What possible purpose would it serve to design an animal to live entirely in water but not be able to breathe underwater?

Since we're now talking about real science, please provide a link to a peer-reviewed science journal where the above was replicated in a lab. Thanks.

As you should know, reputable scientists understand that real scientific theories are based on observation, which can be repeated.

Science need not be replicable in a lab to be real science. I’m not sure where you got that idea. Real science needs to be testable, but that doesn’t mean it has to be replicable in a lab.
In the case of cosmology, the testability takes the form of observable phenomena that are predicted to be seen if the current theory is correct, but not if it is incorrect. In the case of Big Bang cosmology, there are two primary observations that lead to its acceptance:

1. Big Bang cosmology predicts that the size of the universe is increasing over time. This means that light emitted from distant objects has had its wavelength stretched by this spatial expansion, with light traveling longer distances having its wavelength stretched more than light coming from nearer objects. We know the wavelengths of light emitted by hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. When we measure the wavelength of light emitted by distant stars, we find that the wavelength is stretched in exactly the way described above. Light from close stars has wavelengths matching the hydrogen emission spectrum; the spectrum of light from distant galaxies is red-shifted relative to the hydrogen spectrum. The hydrogen emission spectrum, BTW, has been lab confirmed repeatedly, so this result is based on repeatable experiment.

Without a universal expansion there is no explanation for the observed red shifts. If you can come up with one that fits all the other observed properties of the universe and better accounts for the red shifts, the scientific community is all ears. There’s probably a Nobel Prize for you if you actually succeed. “God created it that way” is NOT such an explanation, even if true. Even if it is the result of divine creation, the physical evidence from the red shift still suggests an expanding universe.

2. Big Bang cosmology predicts that the universe should be filled with radiation. If the Big Bang model is right, the universe would have been very energetic in its first fractions of a second. Because of this, the universe at that time would have been much like a red hot furnace, except in the case of the universe, the temperature is so high that the black body radiation would have been gamma radiation, not visible light. As the universe expands, the amount of energy remains the same, but is spread out over a larger volume. Hence the average temperature of the universe declines. The radiation from the first fraction of a second hasn’t disappeared, but still remains to this day. The universe has now cooled to the average temperature of just under 3K (On the Kelvin scale 0 is absolute zero and each degree is the same as the Celsius scale). Because of this cooling, the radiation should be in the microwave wavelength. The Big Bang predicts that if you point a microwave detector at the sky, you should detect microwave radiation of the same wavelength and intensity in ANY direction. Again, this is not something you’d expect to see if the Big Bang is false.

Please note also that some of what I described has indeed been lab verified. Pair production, the production of matter/antimatter particle pairs from energetic light, has been well verified in the lab. Fusion reactions also are well established (this is different from fusion power - fusion reactions in the lab require net energy input and are not self sustaining). We have observed via spectroscopy that older, more distant stars are lacking in metals (defined in astronomy as any element heavier than helium), whereas stars that are closer are typically metal rich - evidence of synthesis of metals in stars. Fusion reactions are known to be unable to produce elements heavier than iron (there is a minimum in the per nucleon binding energy at iron). Heavier elements form from neutron capture and electron emission reactions (which have been seen in the lab) that will readily occur under conditions present in supernovae. Spectroscopic measurements of supernova remnants confirm the presence of these elements, which were NOT formed during the life of the star. Hence they must have formed during the supernova event.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13379

But....But....SCIENCE has already said that it is expanding!!!!

I read the linked article. It doesn’t say what you think it does. It still keeps the prominent feature of the Big Bang cosmology, namely the inflationary universe. This would account for the cosmic background radiation and the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium formed during the inflationary period. It only posits that the expansion ended with the inflationary period and that the universe may not be currently expanding.

While possible, this idea runs afoul of Occham’s Razor. It postulates an extra phenomenon, increasing particle masses, that is not really needed to explain observed data. The current model explains the data; why incorporate the changing masses, especially when (as stated in the article) such mass changes can never be actually observed?

As a speculative idea to be explored, it may be worth considering, but it would be a modification of the BB model, not a refutation. Unless there is some observable consequence to changing particle mass, though, I doubt that this idea will ever be seriously considered.

Well I lean toward the notion that the universe is in my mind, not the other way around. So I guess But.... But....SCIENCE is saying my mind is expanding.

I was just providing an alternative explanation for the redshift, not attempting to refute the Big Bang. Although sans infinite density it seems the bang would be more along the lines of a seep or something.
I don't see any observable consequences coming from it either. Directly anyway. But it could be pointing to an issue with our geometries. For example, if you were looking through a ship's telescope at the horizon and saw the back of someone looking through a ship's telescope at the horizon, my guess is you'll quickly realize it's you as you raise your arm and observe you raising your arm but let's say with a slight delay. So if the speed of light is a constant and the delay took 2 seconds, you can work out the circumference of the planet you're on. So far so good. The problem is that you and the 6 foot measuring stick you're standing next to are only 1/16 inch tall in the eyepiece lens. Did the universe really expand that much in 2 seconds?

That doesn't hold weight to me.. "God needing God.".. i just find it's much easier to rationalize the perfection of the cosmos(The cosmos. Not universe.) with God then "it shook around for a few billion years".. is that really insane? I mean, how is everything a fluke? Religion isn't primitive at the premise: an eternal creative force is all that makes sense. Religion isn't primitive, it was obvious. Neil Degrasse Tyson said 80% of scientists pray to a personal God. We know a Jesus existed. Dawkins agrees. To pass on Abrahamic faith, when 4 billion follow one or the other is lunacy. Saying "prove Abraham existed" is like saying "atheism is ****. Help us out." The idea that everything is a fluke just seems so ridiculous.