Astrophysicist jokes about intelligent design

[Twilightdance]

Perhaps you minsconstrued what I said.
I said that the existence of large amounts of empty and barren space in the universe is a necessary precondition for life to exist.

Perhaps you could tell me how this has no bearing on your argument

Can you please enlighten me how presence of large empty barren space is a necessary precondition for life to exist, as you have put it.

As far as I can tell, we can say with our present knowledge that existence of life needs some very strong conditions which makes most almost all of universe uninhabitable for higher form of life. As a consequence most of the universe is barren of life. You have flipped this fact to be some type of logical necessity in a way I don't know but would love to know about.

Of course if a God and Life is the center of everything, it will be a rational expectation from that God to make life more central in the working of the universe. If creating life was the biggest thing on the God's mind, he could have obviously made it much less fragile, more sustainable and much more important to working of the universe. Of course his actions cannot be fathomed etc ... so I cannot disprove theism or importance of human life at the center of creation. Just that it does not make any common sense - and it is by common sense and rationality that we survive. Creationism, Theism must have made a lot of common sense when stars were light bulbs in the sky and earth was perceived to be flat and sun to be a satellite of earth. But it doesn't make anymore - but surely there is no way to disprove any of it.

Wasted enough time today - only if theists would post less on finding flaws with science or atheists, I would have much less reason to post on these topics. It is not that I start these discussion on this board to attack the theistic positions - but theist keep complaining when someone questions their hot discussions on science.

[Omkara]

For one thing,I am no one to denigrate science.I am undergoing training for a careeer in that field myself.

It is impossible to have life in a universe without 'useless' empty space.The distance between the sun and our nearest star is four light years,compared to the distance between the earth and the sun being eight light minutes.Considering the trillions of stars on the universe,thete does seem to be a lot of barren and uselessly empty space.However,having any more matter to fill that space (or the same amount of matter packed more closely together) would mean the end of life.The universe would simply collapse into itself,killing all living beings.Also,a universe with more matter to fill the empty space would never have formed objects like planets and stars in the first place.
Even assuming them to have been formed,having large bodies near each other would render star systens so chaotic that life could never evolve on such planets.Also,beings on such planets would simply die of massive exposure to radiation.

The argument that a hypothetical God would have made things easier for life to exist is fallacious.Could you work out an intetnally consistent set of alternative laws of physics more conducive to life?Perhaps this IS the simplest and most elegant design.

[Twilightdance]

For one thing,I am no one to denigrate science.I am undergoing training for a careeer in that field myself.

It is impossible to have life in a universe without 'useless' empty space.The distance between the sun and our nearest star is four light years,compared to the distance between the earth and the sun being eight light minutes.Considering the trillions of stars on the universe,thete does seem to be a lot of barren and uselessly empty space.However,having any more matter to fill that space (or the same amount of matter packed more closely together) would mean the end of life.The universe would simply collapse into itself,killing all living beings.Also,a universe with more matter to fill the empty space would never have formed objects like planets and stars in the first place.
Even assuming them to have been formed,having large bodies near each other would render star systens so chaotic that life could never evolve on such planets.Also,beings on such planets would simply die of massive exposure to radiation.

The argument that a hypothetical God would have made things easier for life to exist is fallacious.Could you work out an intetnally consistent set of alternative laws of physics more conducive to life?Perhaps this IS the simplest and most elegant design.

Yes, by current "design" universe cannot sustain life except in very rare situations, so the mere fact it exists in some areas is pretty incredible. Again Barren space is not a necessity, it is a consequence of the laws of nature.

How is then possible the main focus of the creation is life? You are merely saying under current laws of physics there is no other way. Yes. So you are saying laws of physics are created in a manner that make life very fragile and almost impossible. Yet, life is the main purpose of creation? How does that make any sense?

Further, As it stands now laws of physics don't care about Life much. But are laws of physics [which humans have developed as a means of understanding] older than God or is he bound by them?


Theist mindset with a more common example:- A A380 crashes over Atlantic, and all but 1 [Mr X] of its 500 passengers died.
Theist Mr X: It is a miracle that I survived. I was praying to God and God listened to my prayers, its a miracle!

[Omkara]

As I said,unless you can work out a set of laws more conducive to life,there is no proof that this is not the simplest and best set.

[R Gitananda]

Since it's a 40+ minute video, do you know at what point he mentions unintelligent design? ...

Well I think it is 40+ minutes well spent if you are interested in astrophysics ... and he is a very entertaining presenter.

However I will spare you. His points about "stupid design" begin at 32:02 http://youtu.be/Ti3mtDC2fQo

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Everyone is entitled to their view points including Atheist. But I find it quite odd that one would think the 'design' of the Universe is stupid. Empty space is not so empty so to speak. This is just a term science uses to illustrate that void. Look at the example of dark matter and many other mysteries of the universe. The universe itself is so vast. It is said that the Universe is mostly not habitable, but we do not calculate that this universe is vast and who knows how many planets consisting of life there are. I personally feel that there are probably many planets in the universe with life forms right now. I feel that there are beings that are probably more evolved than our species. We could also mention the possibility of many universes coming out of our universe and also universes before our universe. Also that empty space in the universe is very useful as has been suggested. Remember the Earth did not just appear to have water, vegetation, and creatures. It was once a dead planet. Asteroids and other objects including possibly a planet interacted and collided into the Earth causing changes.

Science also sees that the universe is holographic. Each part contains the whole. Everything affects the whole. So even 'lifeless' planets are quite useful. Asteroids are quite useful. Everything is the miraculous play of Siva. Now if an atheist does not want to accept that, then that is fine, but the atheist only bases judgements on what can be objectified. Science itself is a great tool for mankind and it has a lot in common with teachings of the Dharma. Science only focuses on objects. This is its limitation. Dharma studies the subject. Science says that consciousness somehow evolved from amino acids and boom now we perceive, but this I do not think would do justice to the subject of consciousness. How does one study consciousness? Science can only go so far, at least the science as we understand it. Many view Dharma as science and I agree with this. It is science, because it studies the Self. It goes inward and discovers. Atheist snuff their nose and say its all BS, but how can they say this if they never find out who they are? They never turn inward to the consciousness. So they deny God, because they think that God is the sky god concepts that most people believe on this planet. They do not realize that what they seek is already here and it resides in them.

Just my two cents

Om Namah Sivaya

[sanjaya]

Well I think it is 40+ minutes well spent if you are interested in astrophysics ... and he is a very entertaining presenter.

However I will spare you. His points about "stupid design" begin at 32:02 http://youtu.be/Ti3mtDC2fQo

Heh...when you do astrophysics for a living, sometimes looking at presentations of the field geared towards laypeople can be of limited use. But hey, I'll check it out. Tyson is one of my favorites, after all.

So about this business of atheism and design. As you all know I subscribe to a very theistic view of the world. However I can sympathize with the atheist perspective. There is, after all, little hard evidence for the existence of a deity, and largely we theists are convinced by our own personal experiences with Bhagavan (which are difficult to convey to others). Furthermore Hinduism allows for an atheistic worldview, as enshrined in the Nastika school of thought. I think it's worth asking ourselves: do Hindu Scriptures which speak about creation support the idea that the universe is tailored for our existence? That is to say, does the Vedic view of creation even suggest that the Designer's handiwork would evident in the design? I can think of at least one passage from the Vedas that suggests otherwise, but I'm curious as to what people think.

[R Gitananda]

... There is, after all, little hard evidence for the existence of a deity, and largely we
theists are convinced by our own personal experiences with Bhagavan (which are difficult to convey to others). ...

namaste

What you say is very true and I definitely don't think it is my duty to try to convince atheists of anything - especially
since their mindset helps many of them to stay objective. However sometimes the standard of proof seems kind of fuzzy.

For instance if a truly extraordinary anomalous event happens it's importance can be downplayed because it is
non-repeatable. However the hypothesis advanced to explain the phenomena may be amazing in its own right.

This is the way I see the 'milk miracle' of 1995. I remember watching a video of it on CNN in 1995.

I don't ever recall before or since a miraculous claim that was purported to happen simultaneously at
so many locations over a wide swath of geography with media in attendance and cameras recording.

I am not a scientist but it seems to me that a rational approach would be to try to debunk the event and
advance a hypothesis as to how this could have been done. Then that hypothesis could have been tested
by trying to reproduce the appearance of the phenomenon.

Instead scientists in India (perhaps wanting to maintain communal harmony) decided to say that all the supplies
of milk in India were exhausted by the "capillary action" of the murtis because of their porous composition.

After 24 hours the devotees couldn't get the murtis to 'accept' any more milk and that was that. Devotees were
satisfied that a miracle had occurred and although some skeptics were convinced, the ones that were not were
satisfied that "it's nothing special, it's just capillary action". I would still like to see a scientist demonstrate how
this can be done. http://www.milkmiracle.com/

Hari Aum

[Twilightdance]

Heh...when you do astrophysics for a living, sometimes looking at presentations of the field geared towards laypeople can be of limited use. But hey, I'll check it out. Tyson is one of my favorites, after all.

So about this business of atheism and design. As you all know I subscribe to a very theistic view of the world. However I can sympathize with the atheist perspective. There is, after all, little hard evidence for the existence of a deity, and largely we theists are convinced by our own personal experiences with Bhagavan (which are difficult to convey to others). Furthermore Hinduism allows for an atheistic worldview, as enshrined in the Nastika school of thought. I think it's worth asking ourselves: do Hindu Scriptures which speak about creation support the idea that the universe is tailored for our existence? That is to say, does the Vedic view of creation even suggest that the Designer's handiwork would evident in the design? I can think of at least one passage from the Vedas that suggests otherwise, but I'm curious as to what people think.

There is very little actual discussion and understanding of vedas themselves, and whatever attempts have been made are contorted views from puranic or darshana perspectives. The traditional view regards the vedas and the srauta rituals as means to accomplish tasks and sustain the universe. So the ritualistic perspective doesn't even bother about God. It is the sacrifice which maintains the universe which is the central piece of a vedic ritual. Humans, Gods and other beings are just various parties to the sacrifice. Locus of existence is in the sacrifice and not in any God. It is a very agnostic view if not atheistic.

Also it would be wrong to presume that atheists are atheist simply because they lack any inner experience and are merely materialists looking for material proofs. These perceptions and line of argumentation is a straw man created by the theistic debaters. By all accounts the Buddhas, the Jinas and even some of the modern atheists have spent far more time in self introspection, meditation and trying to understand the finer dimensions of existence than most if not all theists in history. On contrary theism entails believing in a preconception created mostly society and strongly believing in it, with often very little persistent introspection & meditation on the fundamental questions of existence.

Having been a theist most of my life, I have no intention to indulge in debates on theism, but I feel a strong resentment in bringing in criticism of science or scientific methods so often in religious discussions.

[Twilightdance]

As I said,unless you can work out a set of laws more conducive to life,there is no proof that this is not the simplest and best set.

How is Islamic heaven as a model of existence? Hey man, I can only point to problems in the current existence for humans, God or you need to work out the details.