Gravitational waves from black holes detected

So is this further proof that God doesn't exist?

The opposite, it goes to show that there is design and order in the laws of nature and one step closer to a unified theory of nature. A design needs a designer, how could a big bang have created such design etc, surely it would be a disjointed mess if the rules were random.
 
The opposite, it goes to show that there is design and order in the laws of nature and one step closer to a unified theory of nature. A design needs a designer, how could a big bang have created such design etc, surely it would be a disjointed mess if the rules were random.

Here we go....

A order does not mean a design.
 
The opposite, it goes to show that there is design and order in the laws of nature and one step closer to a unified theory of nature. A design needs a designer, how could a big bang have created such design etc, surely it would be a disjointed mess if the rules were random.

WWWaaaaahaaattt????

Order doesn't not mean design. That's like saying because the sun rises everyday at the same time, it's designed. All it does is confirm that the rules we predicted exist. Why is not answered, neither does it point towards a designer.
It's been proven many many times that simplicity leads to complexity.
 
Ok I think I understand what gravitational waves are and I think I understand how they have detected them, but how do they come up with the conclusion that it was 2 black holes colliding 1.8 billion years ago?

Basic trigonometry.

The waves were detected by two sensors 3000km apart. By calculating the difference between the two times the sensors detected the same wave, you can pinpoint the location in space from where the wave originated.

img

Then with the data they already know about that area of space, they can conclude what generated the wave.
 
Simplicity leads to complexity, a designer would have to be immeasurably complex which just shifts the question up one notch from what created the universe to what created the designer. It answers nothing.

If anything this makes a creator less likely in that general relativity shows space and time are linked in space-time. So any being outside our universe would perceive all of time at once therefore being omniscient from our perspective. If omniscience exists then free will cannot and we're just playing out what is predetermined.

While this doesn't disprove a creator it disproves all those religions that rely on free will as a core tenant such as Christianity, Islam and so on in whatever form it takes.
 
If this proves that Einstein was right all along he should sue anyone that calls it a theory from now on. Those people who have always claimed that he only had a "general theory" about stuff must feel pretty stupid now.
The only people that should feel stupid, are the ones who believe every thing they are told is a fact.
 
The opposite, it goes to show that there is design and order in the laws of nature and one step closer to a unified theory of nature. A design needs a designer, how could a big bang have created such design etc, surely it would be a disjointed mess if the rules were random.

I don't agree with you. You have the added complexity of the gnarly regress of who made god or gods, and who made gods parents, and who made their parents,.,.

We cannot observe things (like the universe) and assume causation (conclude that god made it).

David Hume http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hume/themes.html
 
The opposite, it goes to show that there is design and order in the laws of nature and one step closer to a unified theory of nature. A design needs a designer, how could a big bang have created such design etc, surely it would be a disjointed mess if the rules were random.

The universe only exists in its current form because of that relative order.

You then need to apply conditional probability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability
 
Interesting...........Muon I had a state education, can you explain conditional probability, imagine I am an intelligent 10-year-old. Go.

Tell more.

You are the result of the success of one sperm cell out of hundreds of millions. The likelihood of your entire glorious existence was incredibly small before conception, yet here you are. No one designed you, no one wrote the 'jpod instructions manual', you are the result of chance.

And so it is with conditional probability (and the Universe).
 
Interesting...........Muon I had a state education, can you explain conditional probability, imagine I am an intelligent 10-year-old. Go.

Tell more.

There is a massive selection bias. You are selecting a scenario where one is conditional and/or linked to the other.

So we can look around and look at the apparent beauty and relative order of the universe because we exist as a consequence of that order. Even if the universe happened by random chance and is a 1 in a trillion (made up numbers) scenario, because we exist we think that it couldn't be random chance. I mean look at those odds.
 
Last edited:
You are the result of the success of one sperm cell out of hundreds of millions. The likelihood of your entire glorious existence was incredibly small before conception, yet here you are. No one designed you, no one wrote the 'jpod instructions manual', you are the result of chance.

He is also here as a result of stars being born then dying and ejecting elements into space which then coalesce to form new stars which again die creating heavier elements. We are all star dust.
 
Here's a nice explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias#Observer_selection

Observer selection
Data is filtered not only by study design and measurement, but by the necessary precondition that there has to be someone doing a study. In situations where the existence of the observer or the study is correlated with the data observation selection effects occur, and anthropic reasoning is required.[14]

An example is the past impact event record of Earth: if large impacts cause mass extinctions and ecological disruptions precluding the evolution of intelligent observers for long periods, no one will observe any evidence of large impacts in the recent past (since they would have prevented intelligent observers from evolving). Hence there is a potential bias in the impact record of Earth.[15] Astronomical existential risks might similarly be underestimated due to selection bias, and an anthropic correction has to be introduced.[16]
 
Back
Top Bottom