Revan, Bane, and Sidious vs. Sion

Started by SIDIOUS 668 pages

Originally posted by ares834
Actually there is an argument based on that. It's called the Fine Tuning argument. The problem I have with it is life as we know it could not exist if some of these factors were shifted, however the possabiltiy of life would still not be impossible.

Ultimately, we evolved within the parameters set by this universe.

You know for some reason it took me a while to get what you were saying (lol). But I get what you're saying now.

My main thing is how so many different life forms all happened on one planet. It's like this planet was specifically designed to support life. Kinda like it's purpose was to hold life.

Or it just so happened to be able to hold life.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm gone for less than a day and first thing I see is this...

Hmm, but somehow I sensed that thread containing Revan is likely to spur such discussion 😛

Originally posted by Zampanó

The scientists have one better than evidence:
they have math
😛

Math is a powerful tool for explaining the nature of reality, though it does have all the answer/is relevant to all matters.

Double post ftw. 🙂

What was before the Big Bang is a subject to more or less probable theories, both philosophical and scientific.

In this sense atemporal, immaterial, all-powerful, personal being/God can be the cause for the Big Bang, considering that time and space themselves came into being in that very moment.

On a side note:
About theories that deal with actual infinity. What about an infinite chain of events? Is this not paradoxical, for evens, if happening in the material universe, have to have a cause. And I stress, I mean infinity as existing within the material reality, not as an abstract idea.

I think you guys are missing the point. Any of the things stated being true doesn't preclude the possibility of God existing. Again, different explanation for same event.

Originally posted by Zampanó
This is a philosophical argument for something that is (all but) an observed scientific phenomena; the Hubble Telescope discovers more and more ancient formations as it looks into the sky, and the Background Radiation is (again, almost) completely explained by the expansionary model of the universe, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to use outdated logic traps when you can simply point to the night sky.

But yes, the evidence is that time as we experience it has continued for some 14 billion years. (There is one school of thought that I like, in which the universe is in a sort of time loop of expansion and contraction, but the math is still out on that one.)

Nebaris, I think you've got the right idea but are a little behind on the latest facts? Do you try to stay current with science-news? It's hard because journalism on the sciences is so abysmally poor. You practically have to read the papers themselves to know what's going on, and even then you're faced with pages of jargon.

I actually wasn't aware of any of the scientific explanations for a true beginning having spontaneously come into existence, though I do kind of like the fact that philosophy and science would both appear to point to the same conclusion in that regard. I am interested in this stuff though so where would you say is probably the best place to research it?

I'm not actually too up to date on the philosophical arguments either, to what extent has this been argued/established in philosophical circles? My grasp of it is more instinctive than learned, and I mostly got to thinking about it when thinking about the regress argument and matter being made up of indivisible units, both of which entail the impossibility of infinity existing in a realised tangible sense.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Failed several times? Where do you get that? Even if you are correct, do you believe that all the failed attempts were chances also? It would seem that if it was a process that has failed several times, then something or someone was wanting life to be evolved here.

4.5 billion years is really not that long compared to forever.

There have been several mass extinction events and at least one genetic bottle where a big chunk of the early modern human population got wiped out. That being said...

...the universe is not tailored for life, life is tailored for the universe via natural selection. The idea that one planet with life around one star in one galaxy is unique, is to betray a gross lack of comprehension of scale.

There are billions of stars per galaxy and hundreds of billions (somewhere close to 200 I believe) of galaxies in the observable universe alone. Due to the inflation period, the lower bound for the diameter of the universe is close to 90 billion light years.

Given those numbers, why should one planet with life, orbiting one star, in one galaxy be so marvellously unique? Relative to the cosmic scale, we are not unique nor are not special; we are utterly and completely insignificant. We could expand outward in a radius of 100 million light years and still be utterly insignificant.

Originally posted by Lucius
There have been several mass extinction events and at least one genetic bottle where a big chunk of the early modern human population got wiped out. That being said...

...the universe is not tailored for life, life is tailored for the universe via natural selection. The idea that one planet with life around one star in one galaxy is unique, is to betray a gross lack of comprehension of scale.

There are billions of stars per galaxy and hundreds of billions (somewhere close to 200 I believe) of galaxies in the observable universe alone. Due to the inflation period, the lower bound for the diameter of the universe is close to 90 billion light years.

Given those numbers, why should one planet with life, orbiting one star, in one galaxy be so marvellously unique? Relative to the cosmic scale, we are not unique nor are not special; we are utterly and completely insignificant. We could expand outward in a radius of 100 million light years and still be utterly insignificant.

Given this sound logic, to suggest that "we are alone" in the galaxy, much less the universe, is ignorance at its finest. That's why I believe in Aliens and UFOS🙂

Zampano/Red - Math is a funny little thing you see. I can start with a conclusion, work backwards, and make math work for a myriad of things that are not necessarily reality. Now with that being said; there are numerous holes in the equation regarding whether or not the universe, as we perceive it, sprang from two extra-dimensional membranes colliding - resulting in a big bang. This is NOT an established 'fact' in any way, shape, or form. I would advise you to check your information more thoroughly before stating that the math proves your/scientists claims. And the sny remarks that you like to throw out do not in any way support your position - they only make you (who has otherwise garnered my respect) out to be an ass in this 'debate'.

And these scientists - these wondrous, remarkable, geniuses were just a little off when they 'knew' the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe/galaxy/solar system. Science is progressive, which is why one should take their findings with a grain of salt until such findings can be observed/experienced firsthand.

Ok, I kind of regret starting this..........

Honestly, yes, I believe in God, but I also know alot more than the average Christian than the ones who just take it either A)Blindly and reak out if they dont live by the Bible or B)Think that all science is bs and take the Bible word for word.

Honestly, Earth, only planet with water, only one with all the right conditions for life to flourish, that cant be a coincidence. But its also possible that alot of what science said is true, but created by God (or however you name Him) But when people say they think that, they are ridiculed by both groups, when honestly they have the highest probability of being correct. The things needed for life, water, breathable air (granted, you can adapt) and all the other things Earth is exactly right on, I dont see how that can be one big cosmic accident, and alot of science IS bs, like (forgive me) Evolution, if it existed, where are the fish with legs? Where are the Neanderthals? Dinosaurs? If evolution existed those should still be around, still evolving. But they are all dead.

Wow...this thread got really really off track...

Originally posted by Pwned
Honestly, Earth, only planet with water, only one with all the right conditions for life to flourish, that cant be a coincidence.

Earth is most certainly not the only planet with water. And in all likleyhood there are probably hundreds of planets that can support life. Consider the vastness of space, there are millions (probably far more) of galaxies each with billions of stars and each star typically has a couple planets. As such it is quite likley that there are many more planets sutiable for holding life.

alot of science IS bs, like (forgive me) Evolution, if it existed, where are the fish with legs? Where are the Neanderthals? Dinosaurs? If evolution existed those should still be around, still evolving. But they are all dead.

How does that disprove evolution? In fact it shows that these specific things were unable to countine living on in the current, at that time, conditions of the world.

Ok, I kind of regret starting this..........

There is no regret, there is the Force.

Honestly, Earth, only planet with water, only one with all the right conditions for life to flourish, that cant be a coincidence. But its also possible that alot of what science said is true, but created by God (or however you name Him) But when people say they think that, they are ridiculed by both groups, when honestly they have the highest probability of being correct. The things needed for life, water, breathable air (granted, you can adapt) and all the other things Earth is exactly right on, I dont see how that can be one big cosmic accident, and alot of science IS bs, like (forgive me) Evolution, if it existed, where are the fish with legs? Where are the Neanderthals? Dinosaurs? If evolution existed those should still be around, still evolving. But they are all dead.


There are three things that I would like to say to this post.
[list=1]
[*]When you have a two different scenarios, the one with less detail is more likely. For example, do you think it is more probable that Alvin is a bank teller, or that Alvin is a bank teller who practices magic tricks in his spare time? If you would like more information on probability theory, PM me and I'll be happy to elaborate.
[*]Who is ridiculing Christian apologists? I pointed to one scientist that advocates just the sort of compatibility suggested by your post. Did you follow the link to Francis S. Collins? He is a scientist that has a strong belief in the Christian God, and does a reasonably good job of reconciling Christianity with scientific fact. Another powerfully gifted Christian intellectual is C.S. Lewis. I am a bit leery of calling the mass of all Christians throughout history stupid; some of the best minds throughout history have been Christian. If atheism were a question of intelligence, there would not be the powerful tradition of Christian Scholarship that survived the ages.
[*]Evolution is not something that can be ignored; I believe a rudimentary understanding to be important even for the layperson. The fact of evolution is seen in the rapid mutation of diseases, most notably the HIV virus. (The methods to treat that disease actually coerce the virus to mutate into a sterile version of itself. Very cool.) Moreover, the evidence for evolution is myriad and entirely consistent. While I do not have the space or motivation to outline the entire field online (although I have tried to do so in the past) I would like to point you toward these two quotations:
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
By T. Dobzhansky
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

The essay from which the above passage is quoted must already be more than 35 years old, and science has marched onward. The specific facts in the article (which you are welcome to search out at your leisure) may be out of date or may even still be applicable, but the sentiment has not been weakened one iota by a greater understanding of the universe. We are in a stronger position now than ever in the past to endorse the validity of evolutionary theory. Even without a single fossil, argues Dawkins, the theory of Evolution would still be the most thoroughly supported scientific concept of all time.

Spoiler:
If you were referring to actual living fish and dinosaurs, then I'll just point you to a Mass Extinction event as well as the lungfish.
[/list]

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Zampano/Red - Math is a funny little thing you see. I can start with a conclusion, work backwards, and make math work for a myriad of things that are not necessarily reality. Now with that being said; there are numerous holes in the equation regarding whether or not the universe, as we perceive it, sprang from two extra-dimensional membranes colliding - resulting in a big bang. This is NOT an established 'fact' in any way, shape, or form. I would advise you to check your information more thoroughly before stating that the math proves your/scientists claims. And the sny remarks that you like to throw out do not in any way support your position - they only make you (who has otherwise garnered my respect) out to be an ass in this 'debate'.

I don't understand. What is your specific criticism, here? If you have found a fundamental flaw in mathematics, then congratulations. You just got every PhD from every university in the world.

I'd also like to ask what level of math education you've received. If you've found flaws in the published work of a prominent scientist, then I would encourage you to publish a critique of your own. Finding a flaw in that field puts you on the short track for every doctorate program in the world. I cannot emphasize how monumentally big it is that you've shown how QM is wrong. There are book deals, honorary degrees, and Russian supermodels in your future. Chicks dig guys with all of the money. All of it.

...

You haven't done any of that, have you?
😐
Your announcement that the math is wrong, that wasn't based on a perfect understanding of the material and a fundamental insight into the nature of reality, was it? That's too bad, I was really happy for you. Until that hits, I'll just go ahead and stick with the people who invest 8 years of their life to reach basic competence in the subject to catch the errors of their rivals, rather than some random poster on KMC.

^^^
See that? That was me being snide. Just disagreeing with your position does not make someone an ass; striking out and trying to badmouth everyone who disagrees with you does that already.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Given this sound logic, to suggest that "we are alone" in the galaxy, much less the universe, is ignorance at its finest. That's why I believe in Aliens and UFOS🙂

DS, I believe in aliens, but why would they come here? We're just some backwards hillbilly planet that doesn't even have FTL yet. The only reason there would be UFOs is if they left some tech behind while building the Pyramids.

[yah triple post!]

Or giving Egyptians lightbulbs ^.^

Or building Puma Punca ^.^

Or a myriad of other things, including Chocolate Donuts.

Originally posted by Zampanó
DS, I believe in aliens, but why would they come here? We're just some backwards hillbilly planet that doesn't even have FTL yet. The only reason there would be UFOs is if they left some tech behind while building the Pyramids.

[yah triple post!]

It's not your job to atttempt to grasp the logic of those that are potentially more advanced than you in every aspect. Who knows? Natural resources maybe? The point is, the law/rule (whichever it is) of probability states that not only do "aliens" exist, but more than likely there are highly advanced civilizations out there.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's not your job to atttempt to grasp the logic of those that are potentially more advanced than you in every aspect. Who knows? Natural resources maybe? The point is, the law/rule (whichever it is) of probability states that not only do "aliens" exist, but more than likely there are highly advanced civilizations out there.

Oh totally. I'm just not convinced they've been here.

My favorite trope in sci-fi is when the hyperadvanced aliens have mastered their own branch of technology, for example the control of gravity, but are garbage at something in which we excel. Maybe they'll be really good at computer science but not as good with materials or engineering or *gasp* law. How cool would it be to have a bunch of gullible hyper advanced aliens?

never mind that FTL actually is impossible in anything other than theoretical physics.