Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can the existence of God be proven by mathematics?
8 views
Skip to first unread message
felix_unger
Mar 9, 2013, 6:44:58 PM3/9/13
to
On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What made me change my views about atheism :
>
> <snip>
> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
> razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
> otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
> few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
> on each other.
>
> <snip>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
>
> What made me change my views about atheism :
>
> <snip>
> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
> razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
> otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
> few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
> on each other.
>
> <snip>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
“I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
Yap
Mar 10, 2013, 3:35:44 AM3/10/13
to
On Mar 10, 7:44 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
Religious idiots say 1+1+1=1, do you believe their maths?
Graham Cooper
Mar 10, 2013, 3:50:31 AM3/10/13
to
On Mar 10, 9:44 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
I thought of about a dozen.
fusion temperature in supernovae
narrow window of Earth Gravity
osmosis
sugar sweetness
...
> “I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
http://www.chatzombie.com/Dragon.jpg
ADAM
KINGS BEACH
QUEENSLAND
Not only did the Big Bang "ROAST A LAMB" H-He (*STARS*)
it also adds crackle when nearly ready! Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F....
BIG BANG
..\
....\
.. .. \
.. .. ..\ Expansion
. . . . . \
. . . . . . \
HYDROGEN. . / Billion Years Old
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
1G STAR H->He FUSION "Let there be light!"
|-|
|-|
|-|
.. \\\\\\\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F ..
99% HYDROGEN/
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
2G STAR
|-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star
|-| o o O -O- o Planets Cool
|-| o Baywatch!
|-| YOU ARE HERE! 13,700,000,000 Years
> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > What made me change my views about atheism :
>
> > <snip>
> > 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
> > razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
> > (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
> > measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
> > otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
> > few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
> > on each other.
>
Is this 150 Anthropic list available?
>
>
>
> > What made me change my views about atheism :
>
> > <snip>
> > 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
> > razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
> > (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
> > measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
> > otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
> > few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
> > on each other.
>
I thought of about a dozen.
fusion temperature in supernovae
narrow window of Earth Gravity
osmosis
sugar sweetness
...
> “I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to”
ADAM
KINGS BEACH
QUEENSLAND
Not only did the Big Bang "ROAST A LAMB" H-He (*STARS*)
it also adds crackle when nearly ready! Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F....
BIG BANG
..\
....\
.. .. \
.. .. ..\ Expansion
. . . . . \
. . . . . . \
HYDROGEN. . / Billion Years Old
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
1G STAR H->He FUSION "Let there be light!"
|-|
|-|
|-|
.. \\\\\\\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F ..
99% HYDROGEN/
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
2G STAR
|-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star
|-| o o O -O- o Planets Cool
|-| o Baywatch!
|-| YOU ARE HERE! 13,700,000,000 Years
Bob Casanova
Mar 10, 2013, 4:53:47 PM3/10/13
to
On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:50:31 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:
>On Mar 10, 9:44�am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > What made me change my views �about atheism :
>>
>> > <snip>
>> > � 5. �I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>> > � razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>> > � (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>> > � measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>> > � otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. �I could accept a
>> > � few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>> > � on each other.
>>
>
>
>Is this 150 Anthropic list available?
>
>I thought of about a dozen.
>
>fusion temperature in supernovae
>narrow window of Earth Gravity
>osmosis
>sugar sweetness
And let's not forget the finely crafted Anthropic
Principle...assuming you can follow the logic.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:
>On Mar 10, 9:44�am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > What made me change my views �about atheism :
>>
>> > <snip>
>> > � 5. �I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>> > � razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>> > � (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>> > � measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>> > � otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. �I could accept a
>> > � few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>> > � on each other.
>>
>
>
>Is this 150 Anthropic list available?
>
>I thought of about a dozen.
>
>fusion temperature in supernovae
>narrow window of Earth Gravity
>osmosis
>sugar sweetness
Principle...assuming you can follow the logic.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Graham Cooper
Mar 10, 2013, 7:21:48 PM3/10/13
to
On Mar 11, 6:53 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:50:31 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:50:31 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>
>
>
> >On Mar 10, 9:44 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > What made me change my views about atheism :
>
> >> > <snip>
> >> > 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
> >> > razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
> >> > (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
> >> > measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
> >> > otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
> >> > few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
> >> > on each other.
>
> >Is this 150 Anthropic list available?
>
> >I thought of about a dozen.
>
> >fusion temperature in supernovae
> >narrow window of Earth Gravity
> >osmosis
> >sugar sweetness
>
> And let's not forget the finely crafted Anthropic
> Principle...assuming you can follow the logic.
> --
>
> Bob C.
Errr.... fundamental constants such as those responsible for fusion
>
>
> >On Mar 10, 9:44 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > What made me change my views about atheism :
>
> >> > <snip>
> >> > 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
> >> > razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
> >> > (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
> >> > measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
> >> > otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
> >> > few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
> >> > on each other.
>
> >Is this 150 Anthropic list available?
>
> >I thought of about a dozen.
>
> >fusion temperature in supernovae
> >narrow window of Earth Gravity
> >osmosis
> >sugar sweetness
>
> And let's not forget the finely crafted Anthropic
> Principle...assuming you can follow the logic.
> --
>
> Bob C.
temperature in Supernovae *IS* the Anthropic Principle.
> >> > razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
> >> > (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
1G STAR H->He FUSION "Let there be light!"
|-|
|-|
|-|
.. \\\\\\\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F ..
99% HYDROGEN/
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
2G STAR
|-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star
or in SkeptiLogic ..... SEE THAT PLANET THERE!
|-|
|-|
|-|
.. \\\\\\\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F ..
99% HYDROGEN/
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
2G STAR
|-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star
Herc
--
www.CHATZOMBIE.com/Dragon.jpg
^^^ THE INVISIBLE SKY PIXIE ^^^
Barb Knox
Mar 10, 2013, 11:56:48 PM3/10/13
to
In article <aq1vrq...@mid.individual.net>,
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
No. *Nothing* about the "real world" can be proven by mathematics.
"As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are
not certain; and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality."
-- Albert Einstein
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
No. *Nothing* about the "real world" can be proven by mathematics.
"As far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are
not certain; and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality."
-- Albert Einstein
--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum videtur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------
raven1
Mar 11, 2013, 8:28:13 AM3/11/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:44:58 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:
>On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> What made me change my views about atheism :
>>
>> <snip>
>
>> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>> razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>> otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
>> few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>> on each other.
>>
>
>> <snip>
Are you serious? You realize that "IlBeBauck", the author of this
paragraph, is a complete imbecile who has no idea what a physics
constant is, don't you? He got this claim from a Creationist website,
and when finally pressed to list some of these supposed "constants",
they turned out to be nonsense like "number of planets in the
universe", a quantity that is neither known, a "physics constant", nor
at all relevant to anything.
wrote:
>On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> What made me change my views about atheism :
>>
>> <snip>
>
>> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>> razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>> otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
>> few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>> on each other.
>>
>
>> <snip>
paragraph, is a complete imbecile who has no idea what a physics
constant is, don't you? He got this claim from a Creationist website,
and when finally pressed to list some of these supposed "constants",
they turned out to be nonsense like "number of planets in the
universe", a quantity that is neither known, a "physics constant", nor
at all relevant to anything.
felix_unger
Mar 11, 2013, 9:12:44 AM3/11/13
to
investigating.
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám
raven1
Mar 11, 2013, 9:29:04 AM3/11/13
to
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:12:44 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
> I just thought it needed
>investigating.
It doesn't. It's scientifically illiterate gobbledygook.
wrote:
>On 11-March-2013 11:28 PM, raven1 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:44:58 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What made me change my views about atheism :
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>>>> razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>>>> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>>>> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>>>> otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
>>>> few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>>>> on each other.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>> Are you serious? You realize that "IlBeBauck", the author of this
>> paragraph, is a complete imbecile who has no idea what a physics
>> constant is, don't you? He got this claim from a Creationist website,
>> and when finally pressed to list some of these supposed "constants",
>> they turned out to be nonsense like "number of planets in the
>> universe", a quantity that is neither known, a "physics constant", nor
>> at all relevant to anything.
>
>I had no idea what he was talking about.
Neither did he.
>On 11-March-2013 11:28 PM, raven1 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:44:58 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What made me change my views about atheism :
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>>>> razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>>>> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>>>> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>>>> otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I could accept a
>>>> few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>>>> on each other.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>> Are you serious? You realize that "IlBeBauck", the author of this
>> paragraph, is a complete imbecile who has no idea what a physics
>> constant is, don't you? He got this claim from a Creationist website,
>> and when finally pressed to list some of these supposed "constants",
>> they turned out to be nonsense like "number of planets in the
>> universe", a quantity that is neither known, a "physics constant", nor
>> at all relevant to anything.
>
>I had no idea what he was talking about.
> I just thought it needed
>investigating.
Bob Casanova
Mar 11, 2013, 12:26:01 PM3/11/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:21:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
>On Mar 11, 6:53�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:50:31 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 10, 9:44�am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> >> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > What made me change my views �about atheism :
>>
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> > � 5. �I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>> >> > � razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>> >> > � (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>> >> > � measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>> >> > � otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. �I could accept a
>> >> > � few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>> >> > � on each other.
>>
>> >Is this 150 Anthropic list available?
>>
>> >I thought of about a dozen.
>>
>> >fusion temperature in supernovae
>> >narrow window of Earth Gravity
>> >osmosis
>> >sugar sweetness
>>
>> And let's not forget the finely crafted Anthropic
>> Principle...assuming you can follow the logic.
impossible for us to observe any universal constants which
preclude life, since if they precluded life we wouldn't
exist to observe them. IOW, the "finely crafted constants"
argument is subtly circular and proves nothing.
Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
"finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
ground?
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:
>On Mar 11, 6:53�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Mar 2013 23:50:31 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 10, 9:44�am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> >> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbeba...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > What made me change my views �about atheism :
>>
>> >> > <snip>
>> >> > � 5. �I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the 150+
>> >> > � razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>> >> > � (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>> >> > � measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical tolerance
>> >> > � otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. �I could accept a
>> >> > � few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which are all dependent
>> >> > � on each other.
>>
>> >Is this 150 Anthropic list available?
>>
>> >I thought of about a dozen.
>>
>> >fusion temperature in supernovae
>> >narrow window of Earth Gravity
>> >osmosis
>> >sugar sweetness
>>
>> And let's not forget the finely crafted Anthropic
>> Principle...assuming you can follow the logic.
>Errr.... fundamental constants such as those responsible for fusion
>temperature in Supernovae *IS* the Anthropic Principle.
No, Graham, the Anthropic Principle says that it would be
>temperature in Supernovae *IS* the Anthropic Principle.
impossible for us to observe any universal constants which
preclude life, since if they precluded life we wouldn't
exist to observe them. IOW, the "finely crafted constants"
argument is subtly circular and proves nothing.
Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
"finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
ground?
linuxgal
Mar 11, 2013, 10:16:46 PM3/11/13
to
Bob Casanova wrote:
> Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
> "finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
> ground?
I consider the opposite sex to be finely crafted, but I suppose if that
> Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
> "finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
> ground?
were not the case, humans wouldn't be here to comment.
--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
Graham Cooper
Mar 11, 2013, 10:55:15 PM3/11/13
to
On Mar 12, 2:26 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:21:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:21:48 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
They RENAMED the Anthropic Principle to this
"THAT'S THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE
THAT'S JUST THE WAY iT IS" ATHEIST GARBAGE!
Make a HYPOCRITE OUT OF ALL OF YOU
for saying Religion is satisfied with answers
that ARE NOT ANSWERS AT ALL.
The LOGICAL LEVEL of the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
is no more convoluted than Pychological Introspection.
Sure a LIAR can't tell if he's talking straight.. but it's a SIMPLE
APPLICATION OF PROBABILITY
by analysing the RANGE OF OPPORTUNITY of several independent Cosmic
Fundamental Constants.
Yes is IS amazing that our existence would never be if SUPERNOVAE
never FUSED all the ELEMENTS.
It is ALSO A MEASURABLE DATUM.
Herc
--
*** LOOK! THE INVISIBLE SKY PIXIE ***
http://CHATZOMBIE.com/Dragon.jpg
george152
Mar 11, 2013, 11:21:44 PM3/11/13
to
On 12/03/13 15:55, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
>
> Pure DUCKSPEAK!
>
> They RENAMED the Anthropic Principle to this
>
> "THAT'S THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE
> THAT'S JUST THE WAY iT IS" ATHEIST GARBAGE!
>
>
> Make a HYPOCRITE OUT OF ALL OF YOU
> for saying Religion is satisfied with answers
> that ARE NOT ANSWERS AT ALL.
>
> The LOGICAL LEVEL of the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
> is no more convoluted than Pychological Introspection.
>
> Sure a LIAR can't tell if he's talking straight.. but it's a SIMPLE
> APPLICATION OF PROBABILITY
> by analysing the RANGE OF OPPORTUNITY of several independent Cosmic
> Fundamental Constants.
>
> Yes is IS amazing that our existence would never be if SUPERNOVAE
> never FUSED all the ELEMENTS.
>
> It is ALSO A MEASURABLE DATUM.
>
> Herc
> --
>
> *** LOOK! THE INVISIBLE SKY PIXIE ***
>
> http://CHATZOMBIE.com/Dragon.jpg
>
Look.A retards rant with CAPs and all.
>
>
> Pure DUCKSPEAK!
>
> They RENAMED the Anthropic Principle to this
>
> "THAT'S THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE
> THAT'S JUST THE WAY iT IS" ATHEIST GARBAGE!
>
>
> Make a HYPOCRITE OUT OF ALL OF YOU
> for saying Religion is satisfied with answers
> that ARE NOT ANSWERS AT ALL.
>
> The LOGICAL LEVEL of the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
> is no more convoluted than Pychological Introspection.
>
> Sure a LIAR can't tell if he's talking straight.. but it's a SIMPLE
> APPLICATION OF PROBABILITY
> by analysing the RANGE OF OPPORTUNITY of several independent Cosmic
> Fundamental Constants.
>
> Yes is IS amazing that our existence would never be if SUPERNOVAE
> never FUSED all the ELEMENTS.
>
> It is ALSO A MEASURABLE DATUM.
>
> Herc
> --
>
> *** LOOK! THE INVISIBLE SKY PIXIE ***
>
> http://CHATZOMBIE.com/Dragon.jpg
>
You don't get this on porno sites
Graham Cooper
Mar 12, 2013, 1:03:14 AM3/12/13
to
The TOPIC is how improbable it is for Cosmic Constants
too all "work together" such that the burnt out Hydrogen core
of 1st Generation Suns explodes to produce exactly the right
temperature range to complete the element chain.
BIG BANG
..\
....\
.. .. \
.. .. ..\ Expansion
. . . . . \
. . . . . . \
HYDROGEN. . / Billion Years Old
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
1G STAR H->He FUSION "Let there be light!"
|-|
|-|
|-|
.. \\\\\\\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F ..
99% HYDROGEN/
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
2G STAR
|-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
1G STAR H->He FUSION "Let there be light!"
|-|
|-|
|-|
.. \\\\\\\\\\\ Supernova-> Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F ..
99% HYDROGEN/
. . . . . /
.. .. ../ Collapses under own gravity
.. .. /
..../
2G STAR
|-| o o O -O- o Planets orbit 2nd Generation Star
|-| o o O -O- o Planets Cool
|-| o Baywatch!
|-| YOU ARE HERE! 13,700,000,000 Years
YOU ARE HERE!
|-| o Baywatch!
|-| YOU ARE HERE! 13,700,000,000 Years
COURTESY OF SUPERNOVAE!
and 150 other Amazing Physics Processes that JUST WORK!
Ken
Mar 12, 2013, 11:14:32 AM3/12/13
to
On Mar 11, 10:03 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote
this shit:
> and 150 other Amazing Physics Processes that JUST WORK!
Too bad your synapses DON'T WORK
this shit:
> and 150 other Amazing Physics Processes that JUST WORK!
MarkA
Mar 12, 2013, 12:58:12 PM3/12/13
to
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:12:44 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
> On 11-March-2013 11:28 PM, raven1 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:44:58 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What made me change my views about atheism :
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the
>>>> 150+ razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>>>> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>>>> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical
>>>> tolerance otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I
>>>> could accept a few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which
>>>> are all dependent on each other.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>> Are you serious? You realize that "IlBeBauck", the author of this
>> paragraph, is a complete imbecile who has no idea what a physics
>> constant is, don't you? He got this claim from a Creationist website,
>> and when finally pressed to list some of these supposed "constants",
>> they turned out to be nonsense like "number of planets in the universe",
>> a quantity that is neither known, a "physics constant", nor at all
>> relevant to anything.
>
> I had no idea what he was talking about. I just thought it needed
> investigating.
The exists, on Earth, a group of people who are very keen to investigate.
> On 11-March-2013 11:28 PM, raven1 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:44:58 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05-March-2013 4:35 AM, ilbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What made me change my views about atheism :
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 5. I found there are no logical atheistic explanations for the
>>>> 150+ razor precise Life Enabling Constants and Physics Constants
>>>> (anthropics) which have been scientifically discovered and are
>>>> measurable to (in some cases) a 120th decimal point critical
>>>> tolerance otherwise our Cosmos is not here and niether are we. I
>>>> could accept a few by coincidental chance, but not over 150 which
>>>> are all dependent on each other.
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>> Are you serious? You realize that "IlBeBauck", the author of this
>> paragraph, is a complete imbecile who has no idea what a physics
>> constant is, don't you? He got this claim from a Creationist website,
>> and when finally pressed to list some of these supposed "constants",
>> they turned out to be nonsense like "number of planets in the universe",
>> a quantity that is neither known, a "physics constant", nor at all
>> relevant to anything.
>
> I had no idea what he was talking about. I just thought it needed
> investigating.
Furthermore, they don't care where the investigations lead them. If there
really is a god who pulls the strings, that would be a sensational
discovery, and they would embrace it. OTOH, if investigation shows a
naturalistic explanation, they are OK with that, too. They are called
"scientists".
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Bob Casanova
Mar 12, 2013, 1:49:48 PM3/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:16:46 -0800, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
>> "finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
>> ground?
>
>I consider the opposite sex to be finely crafted
Why, thank you! But my wife might disagree... ;-)
>, but I suppose if that
>were not the case, humans wouldn't be here to comment.
Yet another miracle!
in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
<linu...@cleanposts.com>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
>> "finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
>> ground?
>
>I consider the opposite sex to be finely crafted
>, but I suppose if that
>were not the case, humans wouldn't be here to comment.
Bob Casanova
Mar 12, 2013, 1:51:33 PM3/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:55:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
Do you always revert to the use of a BabbleGenerator when
presented with something you can't refute?
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:
presented with something you can't refute?
Bob Casanova
Mar 12, 2013, 1:55:29 PM3/12/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:03:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
Oh the irony...
>The TOPIC is how improbable it is for Cosmic Constants
No, it's whether the existence of God can be proved by
mathematics. It can't.
Review the meaning of the Anthropic Principle, which says
none of this "proves" anything. Since you seem to have
neglected to actually read it, here it is again:
The Anthropic Principle says that it would be
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<graham...@gmail.com>:
>The TOPIC is how improbable it is for Cosmic Constants
mathematics. It can't.
none of this "proves" anything. Since you seem to have
neglected to actually read it, here it is again:
The Anthropic Principle says that it would be
impossible for us to observe any universal constants which
preclude life, since if they precluded life we wouldn't
exist to observe them. IOW, the "finely crafted constants"
argument is subtly circular and proves nothing.
preclude life, since if they precluded life we wouldn't
exist to observe them. IOW, the "finely crafted constants"
argument is subtly circular and proves nothing.
george152
Mar 12, 2013, 2:55:24 PM3/12/13
to
On 13/03/13 06:49, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:16:46 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
> <linu...@cleanposts.com>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
>>> "finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
>>> ground?
>>
>> I consider the opposite sex to be finely crafted
>
> Why, thank you! But my wife might disagree... ;-)
>Well, my girlfriend is very finely crafted and thinks gods to be
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:16:46 -0800, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by linuxgal
> <linu...@cleanposts.com>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> Do you also consider it miraculous that everyone's legs are
>>> "finely crafted" to be exactly long enough to reach the
>>> ground?
>>
>> I consider the opposite sex to be finely crafted
>
> Why, thank you! But my wife might disagree... ;-)
figments of tortured imaginations
felix_unger
Mar 13, 2013, 4:28:21 AM3/13/13
to
On 13-March-2013 4:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
I don't get it
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
http://theangryatheist.weebly.com
nature bats_last
Mar 13, 2013, 9:13:18 AM3/13/13
to
>
> "THAT'S THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE
> THAT'S JUST THE WAY iT IS" ATHEIST GARBAGE!
>
> Make a HYPOCRITE OUT OF ALL OF YOU
> for saying Religion is satisfied with answers
> that ARE NOT ANSWERS AT ALL.
>
> The LOGICAL LEVEL of the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
> is no more convoluted than Pychological Introspection.
>
> Sure a LIAR can't tell if he's talking straight.. but it's a SIMPLE
> APPLICATION OF PROBABILITY
> by analysing the RANGE OF OPPORTUNITY of several independent Cosmic
> Fundamental Constants.
>
> Yes is IS amazing that our existence would never be if SUPERNOVAE
> never FUSED all the ELEMENTS.
>
> It is ALSO A MEASURABLE DATUM.
Give it up, Bob: he has an entire bunker stocked to
> "THAT'S THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE
> THAT'S JUST THE WAY iT IS" ATHEIST GARBAGE!
>
> Make a HYPOCRITE OUT OF ALL OF YOU
> for saying Religion is satisfied with answers
> that ARE NOT ANSWERS AT ALL.
>
> The LOGICAL LEVEL of the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
> is no more convoluted than Pychological Introspection.
>
> Sure a LIAR can't tell if he's talking straight.. but it's a SIMPLE
> APPLICATION OF PROBABILITY
> by analysing the RANGE OF OPPORTUNITY of several independent Cosmic
> Fundamental Constants.
>
> Yes is IS amazing that our existence would never be if SUPERNOVAE
> never FUSED all the ELEMENTS.
>
> It is ALSO A MEASURABLE DATUM.
bursting CAPITAL LETTERS!!
On the other hand, it's obvious that he's never read
physicist Victor Stenger's book, wherein Stenger
demonstrates that while individual constants can not be
varied too widely, taken two or more at a time they can
be varied quite widely indeed.
http://tinyurl.com/az9ysu7
NBL
Bob Casanova
Mar 13, 2013, 1:15:58 PM3/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:55:24 +1300, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net>:
"Crafted" being a metaphor, of course... ;-)
in sci.skeptic, posted by george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net>:
Bob Casanova
Mar 13, 2013, 1:20:05 PM3/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:28:21 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>:
>On 13-March-2013 4:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>I don't get it
It's a paraphrase of a claim by a fairly well-known NetLoon
named John McCoy (AKA "McNameless" to avoid attracting him),
and pretty much sums up his contention that any confirmatory
evidence for anything he dislikes is "circular logic". Like
I said, a NetLoon.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>:
>On 13-March-2013 4:49 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> "Evidence confirming an observation is
>> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>I don't get it
named John McCoy (AKA "McNameless" to avoid attracting him),
and pretty much sums up his contention that any confirmatory
evidence for anything he dislikes is "circular logic". Like
I said, a NetLoon.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
Bob Casanova
Mar 13, 2013, 1:23:02 PM3/13/13
to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 06:13:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by nature bats_last
<seqk...@gmail.com>:
Yeah, I know. But occasionally I take him out and dust him
off to see if he's developed an ability to think, so far
without result.
>On the other hand, it's obvious that he's never read
>physicist Victor Stenger's book, wherein Stenger
>demonstrates that while individual constants can not be
>varied too widely, taken two or more at a time they can
>be varied quite widely indeed.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Anthropic
Principle is logically irrefutable.
> http://tinyurl.com/az9ysu7
>
>
>NBL
>
>
>
>>
>> Herc
>> --
>>
>> *** LOOK! THE INVISIBLE SKY PIXIE ***
>>
>> http://CHATZOMBIE.com/Dragon.jpg
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by nature bats_last
<seqk...@gmail.com>:
off to see if he's developed an ability to think, so far
without result.
>On the other hand, it's obvious that he's never read
>physicist Victor Stenger's book, wherein Stenger
>demonstrates that while individual constants can not be
>varied too widely, taken two or more at a time they can
>be varied quite widely indeed.
Principle is logically irrefutable.
> http://tinyurl.com/az9ysu7
>
>
>NBL
>
>
>
>>
>> Herc
>> --
>>
>> *** LOOK! THE INVISIBLE SKY PIXIE ***
>>
>> http://CHATZOMBIE.com/Dragon.jpg
0 new messages