Faith...

bam0 · 21 Feb 2011 at 17:06

Castiel said:
The Universe is infinite however in two of the three probable models.

An open Universe has a negative curvature and is infinite spatially and have no boundary

A closed Universe has a positive curvature, this is the only postulated finite Universe model. This one however is the least likely due mainly to the paradox that wherever you begin, you must end up, much like travelling around the earth in a straight line.

Then we have the Flat Universe which has no curvature and is flat like a sheet of paper, but this type like the Open Universe is also infinite spatially so has no boundary. This is currently the most popular of the postulated Universe models among Physicists.

So due to the fact that the Universe is in all probability infinite, the rest of your conjecture is somewhat questionable.

Not completely, while the Universe may be infinite spatially, the Big Bang theory posits that there is a finite amount of energy and matter in it.
That along with entropy suggests there isn't going to be an infinity of galaxies.

Uriel · 21 Feb 2011 at 17:28

Who ever said that a singularity had to be finite?

Castiel · 21 Feb 2011 at 17:33

bam0 said:
Not completely, while the Universe may be infinite spatially, the Big Bang theory posits that there is a finite amount of energy and matter in it.
That along with entropy suggests there isn't going to be an infinity of galaxies.

Only with regard to the Observable Universe. In which current estimates put the 10^11 Galaxies with 3x10^21 stars.

That would still negate ordinaryjoes conjecture.

Castiel · 21 Feb 2011 at 17:34

Uriel said:
Who ever said that a singularity had to be finite?

It doesn't he is only refering to the observable universe. (I think)

bam0 · 21 Feb 2011 at 18:08

Castiel said:
It doesn't he is only refering to the observable universe. (I think)

It's not about singularities or just limiting it to the observable universe. Although I am assuming that the total universe is a closed system and the laws of thermodynamics apply.

Parsifal · 21 Feb 2011 at 18:11

Rationalization is a defense mechanism for coping with something you have done wrong. Faith is not guilt and so it does not need to be rationalised unless you have a delusional faith.

Regarding questioning one's belief. That is an essential part of religious life. If there is a God, then he definitely wants us to doubt his existence and to search ourselves honestly to see if we really should believe in him. It would seem that he would prefer us to be honest atheists than pretend theists.

rypt · 21 Feb 2011 at 18:14

It's all about faith of the heart!

Efour · 21 Feb 2011 at 18:21

thats the slow version the faster one is much better, ill have a look for it

edit: sod that look how insanely insane this is. Evidence that god exists right there.

rypt · 21 Feb 2011 at 18:22

Efour2 said:
thats the slow version the faster one is much better, ill have a look for it

I got the original version on the Russell Watson CD, but can't find it on youtube

Castiel · 21 Feb 2011 at 18:45

bam0 said:
It's not about singularities or just limiting it to the observable universe. Although I am assuming that the total universe is a closed system and the laws of thermodynamics apply.

The current most popular assumption is that the Universe is Flat, thus it is an Open system and hence infinite.

Dolph · 21 Feb 2011 at 18:45

Metalface Mark said:
Its always up to people that say something exists to prove something, not for skeptics to prove it doesnt.

You can take supernatural activity and religion the same.

This is not a position of rationality, it is a position of a priori assumption.

For a position without assumption, you cannot take a position of logical positivism.

bam0 · 21 Feb 2011 at 20:07

Castiel said:
The current most popular assumption is that the Universe is Flat, thus it is an Open system and hence infinite.

I'm not sure a Flat topology implies that the Universe is a thermodynamically open system, ie; one where energy can pass to/from its surroundings.

Parsifal · 21 Feb 2011 at 20:09

I used to be an arch skeptic but then I realised it is ironically an irrational way of thinking. It's almost like an illness that blinds you to the truth.

Castiel · 21 Feb 2011 at 20:10

bam0 said:
I'm not sure a Flat topology implies that the Universe is a thermodynamically open system, ie; one where energy can pass to/from its surroundings.

I'm not really sure what you are really trying to say. The Universe is either infinite or it is not. Cosmologists cannot even decide whether the laws of physics even apply uniformly across the universe at the moment.

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems anyway.

Boltzmann propounded a new concept with profound cosmological implications. The universe as a whole, must, like any closed system tend toward an equilibrious state of entropy: it will be completely homogeneous, the same temperature everywhere, the stars will cool, their life-giving energy flow will cease. The universe will suffer a 'heat death'. Any closed system must thus go from an ordered to a less ordered state - the opposite of progress.
The tendency toward equilibrium is supposed to hold only in 'closed systems' and because the earth is heated by the sun, it is not a closed system. The universe we observe is simply not decaying; the generalization of 'the law of increasing disorder' to the entire cosmos is unsupported by observation. (Lerner, 1991)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

Either way, for the sake of argument, the number of galaxies and solar systems within the observable universe would make ordinariyjoes conjecture highly improbable.

bam0 · 21 Feb 2011 at 20:28

Castiel said:
I'm not really sure what you are really trying to say. The Universe is either infinite or it is not. Cosmologists cannot even decide whether the laws of physics even apply uniformly across the universe at the moment.

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems anyway.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

That was rather my point, the universe could be infinite in some ways without being so in others, ie; finite energy. And that the universe is a thermodynamically closed system, I wasn't sure if you were saying that it wasn't.

Either way, for the sake of argument, the number of galaxies and solar systems within the observable universe would make ordinariyjoes conjecture highly improbable.

Sure

ordinaryjoe · 22 Feb 2011 at 00:00

Castiel said:
Only with regard to the Observable Universe. In which current estimates put the 10^11 Galaxies with 3x10^21 stars.

That would still negate ordinaryjoes conjecture.

no it wouldn't... 3x10^21 is not even a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of the number needed for a reasonable probability of simply 1000 amino acids reacting together being the same handedness.

Lodgeinator said:
Have a look here ordinaryjoe.
It shows the mechanics for the creation of cells and their duplication.
(it takes a few mins to get the the explanation).

The video explains how some balls of fatty acids can absorb more acids and grow into bigger balls of random acids. It explains how there could be a concentration amino acids together - not how they could react into any useful 'information' except leaving it to chance, which is what I was arguing against. My arguement was never that fatty acids would never meet and react but that when they do, the chances of the chains of acids being useful are ridiculously ridiculously improbable.

The video also don't face the issue that biological proteins require the same handedness for all of the molecules in them or many other real issues with abiogenesis. The video instead argues against 4 simplistic arguements which I haven't used, then focusses on how fatty acids could have met. I didn't argue that they couldn't meet.

Castiel said:
Either way, for the sake of argument, the number of galaxies and solar systems within the observable universe would make ordinariyjoes conjecture highly improbable.

No no no!!! 10^21 stars is no where near enough (as I said above)

Castiel · 22 Feb 2011 at 00:22

ordinaryjoe said:
<snip>

Do you have citation for what you are talking about. It sounds like a lot of nonsense to me.

All it needs is the relevant chemicals, the planet to be in the"liquid water" zone of its Star and a suitable tidal influence.

How many Planets in the observable universe do you think fit that criteria, and how many of those do you think have the relevant chance of having the organic material necessary for abiogenesis.

Even if the Earth is unique, it doesn't suggest anything other than chance, in fact it makes it more likely.

Given that organic compounds are pretty commonplace in space (comets etc) I think that you are making this up and trying to hide the fact with big numbers.

So a citation and source material please, so we can look for ourselves.

I suspect this is simply some form of ID rubbish.

Some other things for you to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_mediocrity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

jas72 · 22 Feb 2011 at 01:38

Spit said:
If you are religious, how do you rationalise yours? I realise you are not really supposed to, as it part of you, but surely you must question your belief?

I am an atheist so it is an alien concept to me. I just see no reason/evidence for the existence of a God.

I am not judging or saying you are wrong, just fascinated.

i'm agnostic i believe in self belief if that make sense I know people who should have died yet lived despite doctors prognosis... they were devout catholics.

Is there a god ... mmm jury is out but can people beat illness by belief that there is? I think they can. However there is no scientific proof of my theory nor are there reasons for people surviving based on faith alone.

Hatter The Mad · 24 Feb 2011 at 01:15

Castiel said:
Name one horrific thing done in the name of religion that could not have been done without it. That is a false argument, anyone can see that.

Well, exactly - because we are in the large part free-willed. However, by my asking this question, I was trying to show that the argument that religions are a 'force for good' is also a false one.

vonhelmet said:
Huh? Science can't answer those questions because they are not testable. You could say that science tells us how we came to be here, but that's not a "why" in the wider philosophical sense. Or you could say that science tells you what happens to your physical body when you die, but that generally isn't what people are concerned with.

I took "why" to mean "why we came to be here" (you're right, can be interpreted either way). For me, scientific explanations answers this.

As far as what happens after we die, within our realm of understanding and the physical properties of the world we are able to observe, science does explain what happens once we die - nothing. We just cease to exist, so does our consciousness, because our consciousness stems from our organic organism.

Castiel · 24 Feb 2011 at 01:21

Hatter The Mad said:
Well, exactly - because we are in the large part free-willed. However, by my asking this question, I was trying to show that the argument that religions are a 'force for good' is also a false one.

Exactly, Religion is simply a tool, it can be used for good or ill. It depends entirely on the people making the interpretation for justification.