It's clear there is a Creator of the Universe!

[WuTank]

First off all i am sorry for my poor english, i am from Germany.
We are not able to give any examples and theories here.The only thing that is clear, that in our universe life is possible.This is a fact.So we dont have to ask other questions.The tautology here is that life wouldnt be able, we are not able to posse such questions.
So if we are sticking with the facts we know:Life is possible.
The Question like what would have happend if atom V would have crushed in atom W instead of K in the Planck time, are not valid here, because we will never have facts as an answer.
The argumentation you make is reversed and in my eyes not correct.
You see the result "life" and argumente that it is much more likey that it has been created than it has developed itself.
I agree here that is much more likey that the event "no life" occours, but as we see "life" has occoured in our world.
Nobody knows the odds but lets say the are equal to the ones
flopping a Royal Flush.
And I dont see you laying down a consecutive Royal Flush with the justification "its too unlikey to happen 2 times in a row".

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's like saying that a penguin, upon travelling to the Sahara, must conclude that the world is more likely "created" than "uncreated" because it is so different when he travels far from the environment where his species evolved. In other words, it makes no sense whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, what properties would a created universe have. And what properties would a non created universe have?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have have no idea. How does one create a universe?

[/ QUOTE ]By modeling aspects of the one you are in. An obvious model would be a programmed virtual world. If you built a virtual world for the purpose of study, what programming tricks would you use to ensure the artificial nature was never discovered by it's inhabitants?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not allow them to notice it?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
First off all i am sorry for my poor english, i am from Germany.
We are not able to give any examples and theories here.The only thing that is clear, that in our universe life is possible.This is a fact.So we dont have to ask other questions.The tautology here is that life wouldnt be able, we are not able to posse such questions.
So if we are sticking with the facts we know:Life is possible.
The Question like what would have happend if atom V would have crushed in atom W instead of K in the Planck time, are not valid here, because we will never have facts as an answer.
The argumentation you make is reversed and in my eyes not correct.
You see the result "life" and argumente that it is much more likey that it has been created than it has developed itself.
I agree here that is much more likey that the event "no life" occours, but as we see "life" has occoured in our world.
Nobody knows the odds but lets say the are equal to the ones
flopping a Royal Flush.
And I dont see you laying down a consecutive Royal Flush with the justification "its too unlikey to happen 2 times in a row".

[/ QUOTE ]Hey WuTank, Not only is your german beter than mine but probably your english too. As I have said before this isn't an "OMG, life is so unbelievable that it must have been created argument!". It an agrument about the number of non created universes. It admits that these non created universes contain life. But it also says that the lifefroms in the non created universes will possible be able to gain enough knowledge to create a model of the universe. That model is capable of containing "life". And once 1 non created life form masters the ability to create this artificial universes. They would create many on them. So that the number of created universes in existance out ways the number of non created universes.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for life to exist. I'm saying it's possible for "life" to create universes capable of containing "life". That possibility combined with the number of created universes that would be created by these advanced beings, makes the number of created universes larger than the number of non created universes. We live in one of them. Which one do we likely live in?

I don't actually believe that the actual number are particularly meaningful that I'm using. But I think it's a more interesting argument than the anthropic principle.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Not allow them to notice it?

[/ QUOTE ] How? Is making traveling far distances for it's medium sized inhabitants impossible a good tactic? Perhaps if I described a better property of a created universe. It has a start. Our universe appears to have a start. Any thoughts of any type of creator of a universe in which that universe didn't have a start should immediately be dismissed. Non created universes could have starts as well. But created ones must have starts.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not allow them to notice it?

[/ QUOTE ] How? Is making traveling far distances for it's medium sized inhabitants impossible a good tactic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? What distinguishes a big created universe from a big non-created one?

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps if I described a better property of a created universe. It has a start. Our universe appears to have a start. Any thoughts of any type of creator of a universe in which that universe didn't have a start should immediately be dismissed. Non created universes could have starts as well. But created ones must have starts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just waving your hands about. None of this follows logically from anything. If you're creating universes, you could just as easily creat one that doesn't appear to have a start. I was playing Quake 4 earlier today and I saw no hint of a Big Bang.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
You're just waving your hands about. None of this follows logically from anything. If you're creating universes, you could just as easily creat one that doesn't appear to have a start. I was playing Quake 4 earlier today and I saw no hint of a Big Bang.

[/ QUOTE ] Boro, yes you can create one that doesn't appear to have a start. But ours does appear to have a start. Created universes must have a start. Having a start is consistant with a created universe.

For instance if the universe never had a start and that could be proven, any talk of a creator would be easliy dismissed.

[ QUOTE ]

Why? What distinguishes a big created universe from a big non-created one?

[/ QUOTE ] Nothing, I think you may be misunderstanding. The properties we notice of this universe are consistant with a created one. I am not saying they are inconsitant with non created ones. Why is that such a big contention to you? Besides it being the weakest point of the arguement.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're just waving your hands about. None of this follows logically from anything. If you're creating universes, you could just as easily creat one that doesn't appear to have a start. I was playing Quake 4 earlier today and I saw no hint of a Big Bang.

[/ QUOTE ] Boro, yes you can create one that doesn't appear to have a start. But ours does appear to have a start. Created universes must have a start. Having a start is consistant with a created universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how is it incosistent with a non-created universe? What would a universe without a start possibly look like? Hint: I don't think you can have a non-created universe without a start.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance if the universe never had a start and that could be proven, any talk of a creator would be easliy dismissed.

[ QUOTE ]

Why? What distinguishes a big created universe from a big non-created one?

[/ QUOTE ] Nothing, I think you may be misunderstanding. The properties we notice of this universe are consistant with a created one. I am not saying they are inconsitant with non created ones. Why is that such a big contention to you? Besides it being the weakest point of the arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is useless. Any and all properties we observe could be consisted with a created universe simply by postulating that the creator created it that way.

This is just silly. It doesn't explain anything, and you certainly can't make any claim that our universe is more likely to be created than non-created. It just doesn't follow from anything.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]

And how is it incosistent with a non-created universe? What would a universe without a start possibly look like? Hint: I don't think you can have a non-created universe without a start.

[/ QUOTE ] I never implied it was. I said that the big bang is consistent with a created universe, is it not? Never did I say that is was inconsistent with a non created one.

[ QUOTE ]
This is useless. Any and all properties we observe could be consisted with a created universe simply by postulating that the creator created it that way.

[/ QUOTE ] Give me a good reason to posutlate the creator and I'll agree with you. Without that reason to postulate I'm not sure why this matters to this argument.

[ QUOTE ]
This is just silly. It doesn't explain anything, and you certainly can't make any claim that our universe is more likely to be created than non-created. It just doesn't follow from anything.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes it is silly, but it is as college kid pointed out a infinately better argument than the ones for any particular God. It is logical, It may not follow logically that we live in a created one soley becuse of the properties. I'm just not stating what you believe I'm stating