Evidence of God: Physics

While I myself believe in a creator, this guy is missing the point of evolution...
The universe is not fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned to it's environment.
This is like me saying look, there's proof of god, fish have fins and gills so the ocean is fine tuned to them... ahh no... they are fine tuned to the ocean.


edit to add: He also talks about the cosmological constant being perfect for the universe to actually exist - I think he is making the same mistake new age scientists often make, drawing a conclusion because you have worked out a piece of the puzzle forgetting that there are so many pieces missing you really dont know what you are talking about to begin with.

Originally posted by byteshertz
While I myself believe in a creator, this guy is missing the point of evolution...
The universe is not fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned to it's environment.
This is like me saying look, there's proof of god, fish have fins and gills so the ocean is fine tuned to them... ahh no... they are fine tuned to the ocean.

edit on 21-11-2010 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

I think the video is not about evolution, but the whole of Universe, hence the Universe is the product of Universal laws, and those laws are finely tuned, but if they are changed even a little bit, it would be destructive.

reply to post by oozyism


Yeah, "fine tuned" to the point where only a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the universe is liveable...so at best, the whole thing isn't very "intelligent".

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by byteshertz
While I myself believe in a creator, this guy is missing the point of evolution...
The universe is not fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned to it's environment.
This is like me saying look, there's proof of god, fish have fins and gills so the ocean is fine tuned to them... ahh no... they are fine tuned to the ocean.

edit on 21-11-2010 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

I think the video is not about evolution, but the whole of Universe, hence the Universe is the product of Universal laws, and those laws are finely tuned, but if they are changed even a little bit, it would be destructive.

Well taking it from that point of view I still disagree, to say the universe is finely tuned would first require us to understand what the universe is and lets face it we know what it is made of, how different systems throughout it work but we have no idea what the universe really is - it's like asking a fish in the sea to understand what earth (as a planet in the solar system) is.

Originally posted by byteshertz




Well taking it from that point of view I still disagree, to say the universe is finely tuned would first require us to understand what the universe is and lets face it we know what it is made of, how different systems throughout it work but we have no idea what the universe really is - it's like asking a fish in the sea to understand what earth (as a planet in the solar system) is.

edit on 21-11-2010 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

Yes, I agree with you..

But

At the same time, I also agree that the Universe would have been destroyed immediately if one law was changed by small portion, hence the Universal Constant as the video talks about.

I find that fascinating.

If you had ultimate number of possibilities, to setup that constant, why this number? and accidentally, this allows the Universe to exist??

I find that amazing.

Although this is not my argument, I kinda support it, it is interesting to take in to consideration non the less.

reply to post by Robert Reynolds


This is quite possibly the oddest thing I've ever read.

Atoms aren't wet either. At which point does an assembly of atoms become 'wet'?

Obviously there is a point at which molecular arrangements of proteins give rise to life, animating the inanimate.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity


Please, begin to use the quote and external content features.

Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia

Quote:"Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism."
Source: www.leaderu.com...

You left out

This is the second part of a two-part lecture given by Dr. Schaefer. Part 1 of this lecture appeared in The Real Issue, November/December, 1994

Yes, a 16 year old secondary source is so much more reliable than the two videos in which Stephen Hawking directly states that he has no room for a deity...

Stephen Hawking

Quote:"I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."

Source: www.allaboutscience.org...
Source:evillusion.wordpress.com... (you would do well to also read Einsteins take on thing's here too)

Ok, let's see...where does he say he's a creationist? Where does he say he believes in a deity?

Any physicist would admit that the universe is consistent with a supreme being ordering it, but that doesn't create logic line between any level of certainty of that being's existence. In fact, the argument would be entirely circular. We know a being exists because we have observed its works in ordering the laws of physics which we use to prove its existence.

And on Einstein, he had a clearly Spinozan view of god, which is redefining the concept of god as 'the natural world'.

You said.....((No, it wasn't an argument from authority, it was a reference. The entire statement's validity was predicated on the laws of physics, not the statements of Stephen Hawking.))
Does not an argument from authority and using the a reference to an argument from authority amount to the same thing???

...no...
An argument from authority is an argument in which the entire validity of your statement is propped up by an authority.

"X is bad because this respected figure said so"

Saying that a respected figure happens to agree with a position that you can support independently is not the argument from authority

MrXYZ says ....."As for more and more evidence...please enlighten us and post just one piece of evidence that supports the existence of a god. You'd prove Stephen Hawking wrong, good luck! "

It's saying that you'd prove a luminary in the field of astrophysics wrong. It's not saying "God doesn't exist because Stephen Hawking said so"

"Either way, the thread title is very misleading as nothing in physics supports creationism...as Stephen Hawking stated correctly. Of course your understanding of physics is better than hawking's, so I'm sure you can provide us with some scientific evidence of how physics proves the existence of god."

The correctness of the statement is clearly independent of the mouth that is stating it.

I think you will find his argument rested on Stephen Hawking ! Obviously he had no knowledeg of the real views of the man.

And you clearly didn't watch the videos I embedded that showed that you had no real knowledge of Hawking's views

And of course the onus is not on me to prove anything!!! Why dont you disprove it?

...uhh...how many times do I have to tell this to theists...ok, I'm going to make this fun and use a silly example, as philosophers and satirists have been known to do.

I'll pick one from the many list of silly examples I've heard before....Last Thursdayism.

Can you prove to me that the entirety of the Cosmos was not created in its current state, with all the motion taking place and every single in its perfect place, last Thursday? Can you prove that a all-knowing being didn't create things that way just to mess with our heads?

Of course not! And the burden of proof would be on whoever made that claim.

Another one. Can you prove to me that there isn't an invisible, incorporeal, flying dragon that breathes heatless, lightless fire in my garage?

Of course not! And the burden of proof would be on whoever made such a claim!

Can you prove to me that there isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn orbiting the moon while sipping from a teacup?

Of course not!

Your position of proving a deity falls into that same category. I can't disprove it, but that's simply because I'm operating from a null position. I am not accepting anything unless evidence is provided. I can disprove the proof and evidence, but not your baseless claim.

Although it will be difficult considering the conclusions of such eminent people as Einstein and Hawkings......good luck........lol

Hey look, argument from authority that is mislabeled. Neither of those men believed in a deity and it would be a bit silly to only believe in a deity because they did.

You said ....."I'd implore you to do the same. I just provided video evidence that you're quite off the mark. Sure, back in the late 80's Hawking left a bit of wiggle room for the existence of a deity, but he never stated that a deity was a necessity."

No! I will provided quotes that puts all of your argument to bed i.e

...after ignoring the quotes that I

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

Metaphor

–noun
1.a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def. 1 ) .
“It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

When asked by a reporter whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

Hmm...nobody said that Hawking believed science and Christianity to be competing world views. From what I've understood of his work, he thinks they're entirely separate things. It's just like NASCAR and turnip-farming aren't competing professions.

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

Yes, this describes a sense of meaning, not an outright belief in god.

Again, did you watch the videos I embedded? I'll embed them in every reply to every post you make in which you claim Hawking is religious.

When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings". Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.

Metaphor

–noun
1.a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def. 1 ) .
“It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

"The idea that God might want to change His mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, God knew what He intended when He set it up."

...who is this from?

And of course the now famous argument buster........."I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."

And he didn't end it with "And that is what I believe", he just said it would be consistent. Not necessary, not probable, simply consistent.

Source:www.allaboutscience.org...

I like that you're quoting a sham site that is clearly a creationism shill site. I could easily refute every one of the ridiculous arguments made by this quote-mining, illogical website if I had the time and resources.

With all of the intelligence and magnificence of Einstein and Hawkings pointing toward a creator, i say the odds are stacked incredibly in that direction (dont you) So therefore since you are left with unfavourable odds (to say the least) against.

No matter how many times you spread the lie, they're both atheists.

i say it's for you to go against the finest intelligence's the world has had to offer and prove there is no god!

So your argument is "Two really smart physicists have their statements quote-mined to make it look like they believe in a deity, therefore you have to prove there isn't a god!"

...no, that's actually not logical. No matter who holds the position, it still lacks any level of evidence, as the cosmological argument is a sham.

In fact, Hawking knows this.

At this point the believers hold all of the aces whereas you my friend along with others hold a busted hand. Do yourselves a favour and cash in your chips before you loose your self respect as well as god!!!

...I'm sorry, no. You don't hold any of the aces. Hell, you're not even playing poker. You've got a card from Uno, a recipe card for yams, a receipt from the pharmacy, the rules card that came with the deck, and a piece of paper with "9" scribbled on it.

Your entire argument relies on quote-mining, argument from authority, and placing the burden of proof on the skeptic.

It was a bit refreshing to actually encounter some genuine quote-mining though. Been a while since someone did that on O&C.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity


Of course he'd leave a bit of 'wiggle room'. He's a scientist, he's not as prone to making absolute claims.



And without further adieu, here are the two videos you previously ignored:







Watch these videos, they are conclusive proof that Hawking doesn't believe in a deity.

reply to post by oozyism


I'm sorry, but the universe wouldn't have batted a metaphorical eyelash if the weak force, a fundamental force of the universe, didn't exist. The universe would have still been able to support life and continue on without noticing.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

I'm sorry, but the universe wouldn't have batted a metaphorical eyelash if the weak force, a fundamental force of the universe, didn't exist. The universe would have still been able to support life and continue on without noticing.

How about you show us the calculations where a Universe with tweaked laws wouldn't be catastrophic.

Second line..

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by oozyism

 

I'm sorry, but the universe wouldn't have batted a metaphorical eyelash if the weak force, a fundamental force of the universe, didn't exist. The universe would have still been able to support life and continue on without noticing.

How about you show us the calculations where a Universe with tweaked laws wouldn't be catastrophic.

Second line..

Given that we only know about carbon based lifeforms, and that it's totally possible that other lifeforms in the universe are based on something else, we can only speculate what would happen to life if the forces change. It would probably be catastrophic for some life (depending on which force is modified), but we can't say no life would be possible if things change.

Fact is, if it was fine tuned for us specific lifeforms, it was a bit of a failure given that only a ridiculous tiny spec of the universe is habitable. An analogy would be if you dropped 1 litre of red color into the sea and then claim you "made the sea turn red". You didn't fine tune the sea to be red...

So saying it was INTELLIGENT design with the purpose of creating life is kinda silly given the arguments in the following video:

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Very nice madnessinmysoul but............................What is your point?

Of course it wouldnt be the first time Hawkings was wrong........

After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was wrong And it wont be the last my friend!

Source: www.newscientist.com...

And of course under Einsteins theory of relativity the idea of time as a universal constant is demolished so theoretically this could be Hawkings latest mode of thinking..........

Source: discovermagazine.com...





Never forget of course that in a parallel universe i could be winning this argument....



Also my little feathered friend if the non dualist vedantists are to be believed.......you are arguing with yourself

Source: buddhasociety.com...

And last but by no means least since you have such a varied and interesting intellect (god given of course) i have this little poser for you........What came first the chicken or the egg ? (good luck........lol)

p.s a few quotes for you to mull over............

It is a poetic principle that the freedom of the individual must fight against the restrictions of reality... I am still, thank God, an atheist.

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.

Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends.

I don't believe in the after life, although I am bringing a change of underwear.

And of course under Einsteins theory of relativity the idea of time as a universal constant is demolished so theoretically this could be Hawkings latest mode of thinking.........

Source: discovermagazine.com...





Never forget of course that in a parallel universe i could be winning this argument...

In what way does any of that prove god's existence through physics?

reply to post by MrXYZ



It doesn't!......you cant! Then again i dont think you can disprove it either! It's all sheer speculation, everything is just guess work and theory. The theory will survive untill some smarter guy comes a long with a better one and so on and so on. Just a personal opinion mind.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity


My point is that you are perpetuating blatant lies.

It's funny that your argument shifted from "These smart guys said it, so you have to disprove it!" to "This smart guy that I held up because I thought he supported my position changed his mind, so he could change it on god"

You have a baseless argument and you don't want to admit it.

Now for a list of non-sequitur statements.

Also my little feathered friend if the non dualist vedantists are to be believed.......you are arguing with yourself

Source: buddhasociety.com...

I'm not feathered, that's Astyanax.

And the vedantists...um...what does that have to do with physics?

And last but by no means least since you have such a varied and interesting intellect (god given of course) i have this little poser for you........What came first the chicken or the egg ? (good luck........lol)

Eggs. Egg-laying reptiles existed quite a bit before chickens.

And my intellect arose through evolution and was passed on genetically, I probably get it from my father.

p.s a few quotes for you to mull over............

That, just like the rest of this post, do nothing to address the topic at hand.

It is a poetic principle that the freedom of the individual must fight against the restrictions of reality... I am still, thank God, an atheist.

Hey, an unsourced quote! And...it has nothing to do with this!

Yay! Atheist bashing!

I once wanted to become an atheist, but I gave up - they have no holidays.

We do, we just don't have any religious ones. We have the national ones though.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Yep, it's also non-profit.

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.

Well, that's sort of silly. If someone gives me a present, I thank them. If something great happens for no discernible reason, I just feel really, really happy.

Or sometimes I just thank the universe or the laws of physics. It's situational.

Not only is there no God, but try getting a plumber on weekends.

I don't believe in the after life, although I am bringing a change of underwear.

Again, more silly pointless statements, further evidence that you cannot bring up valid arguments.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You said..... "These smart guys said it, so you have to disprove it!" I never said these smart guys had proof so when did i say you have to disprove it. Now that is perpetuating a blatant lie!

You said....."This smart guy that I held up because I thought he supported my position changed his mind, so he could change it on god"...........So could he not ??? Can you prove that ? after all he changed it on the Black Hole theory did he not ? If you say he cant then you are Perpetuating a blatant lie

Astyanax !!! So your a fish ? Forget the feathers....scaly.......lol...........

Astyanax is a genus of freshwater fish in the characid family.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Since this may not be the Astyanax you meant i will save you the shame of saying that you arePerpetuating a blatant lie

Vedanta and Physics mmmh lets see................

Source: vedantic-physics.com...
Source: transontology.org...
Source: www.thecircleoffire.com...

Einstein quote : “When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.”

Source:thinkexist.com...
plenty more on request !

Bye.

Originally posted by Uncle Gravity

Vedanta and Physics mmmh lets see................

Source: vedantic-physics.com...
Source: transontology.org...
Source: www.thecircleoffire.com...

Einstein quote : “When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.”

Source:thinkexist.com...
plenty more on request !

Bye.

Your first source doesn't even mention an author and 90% of the site (everything but the title page) is under construction. Not only that, if you look closely, you'll realize the site hasn't been modified since 2009. Not saying whatever's on there is a lie, but I'd definitely double check everything it says on there.

Your second source is very dishonest about true Vedanta by claiming it's all backed up by science. Simply put, it's not science he's talking about, it's philosophy. Which explains whey he talks about quantum mechanics...a lot of quantum mechanics is so theoretical at the moment, you could almost consider it "mathematical philosophy". He's also stating a lot of things that are obvious without requiring religious scripture (which is the strongest kind of evidence in Vedanta...logic and perception are seen as sub-standard kinds of evidence) pretending that this is some giant revelation. His "Transontology is to the 21st century what Relativity was to the 20th" statement is kind of laughable given that he doesn't show a single thing that would come even close to the implications from e=mc2. An example of that is his claim that consciousness is important. OF COURSE it is, without consciousness we couldn't do a lot of the things we do. But not having everything figured out regarding consciousness doesn't mean we can't make other discoveries. Anyway, just so you know, dolphins are conscious too because they give eachother names...so we're not that special

Anyway, let me post a section of his "scientific" evidence:

The Vedic theory of emanation teaches that God has many energies, classified into broad categories of internal, marginal and external. The internal energies comprise God's confidential spiritual potencies, the marginal energies emanate the individual living entities, and the external energies create the material universes.

Mhhhh, yeah..."science"...riiiiiight. Also, they assume a 4 dimensional space, however, we're not even sure there are only 4 dimensions. Technically, there could be an infinite amount of dimensions and we might never know about them...just like inhabitants of "flatland" would never see a 3 dimensional being as anything but a dot or line.

Anyway, on to your third source:

The importance of Advaita Vedanta is that it makes the claim that at the ultimate level, the universe will be seen to have as its origin, not discrete, multiple particles, but a single homogenous structure beyond time and space.

Advaita Vedanta does not say that the Standard Model is wrong. Nor will it claim that something deeper like the String theory is wrong. But what Advaita Vedanta says is that till this homogenous continuous entity is reached as the basis, physics will never achieve a complete solution and we will have to continue digging deeper and deeper. All questions will finally be answered only when we reach the rock bottom, at which we will find this homogenous structure.

They make a CLAIM about what's at the "ultimate level" without providing any evidence or backup. All the backup they have a of philosophical nature, and NOT scientific nature. If you read the whole page (I did), you'll notice that it consists mostly of an explanation of the standard model, quantum physics, and string theory...until he reaches the part I quoted. Once you get there, he basically makes a random claim about the final solution...without showing any evidence, lol.

So to summarize:

Your main sources aren't scientific sources, they are PHILOSOPHICAL sources that try to appear scientific.


Of course you can always interpret stuff in ways that make it seem as if they are connected, and I have nothing against philosophy...but except for the scientific explanations of quantum theory, everything else on those sites is pure philosophy and BELIEF. Nothing wrong with that, if they were honest about it...but those pseudo-science websites try really hard to come off as scientific websites, when in reality, they don't even apply scientific method when making conclusions.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity


Again I implore you to start using the quote and external quote functions. They're there for a reason.

Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
You said..... "These smart guys said it, so you have to disprove it!" I never said these smart guys had proof so when did i say you have to disprove it. Now that is perpetuating a blatant lie!

How about I just let your own words disprove what you just said:

And of course the onus is not on me to prove anything!!! Why dont you disprove it? Although it will be difficult considering the conclusions of such eminent people as Einstein and Hawkings......good luck........

You said the burden of proof was not upon yourself and that it would be difficult for me to disprove your position based upon the (entirely fictitious) conclusion of Einstein and "Hawkings".

You said....."This smart guy that I held up because I thought he supported my position changed his mind, so he could change it on god"...........So could he not ??? Can you prove that ? after all he changed it on the Black Hole theory did he not ? If you say he cant then you are Perpetuating a blatant lie

Hey look, you keep repeating what I'm saying instead of admitting that you were wrong about Stephen Hawking and were in fact perpetuating a lie about him.

He could change his mind on it, but that doesn't imply that it's probable.

And the reason he changed his positions on black holes was new evidence. If there were somehow new evidence for a deity (none of which has come up in the past...ever), I'm sure anyone with a scientific mind would consider it, but that doesn't make it probable.

The simple fact is that you misrepresented Stephen Hawking. He is an outright atheist and has been for a long time.

Why don't you simply admit that you were wrong?

Astyanax !!! So your a fish ? Forget the feathers....scaly.......lol...........

Astyanax is a genus of freshwater fish in the characid family.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

...I was referring to the user and his avatar. He actually takes the name from a classical Greek myth.

Since this may not be the Astyanax you meant i will save you the shame of saying that you arePerpetuating a blatant lie

Hey look, I get that you think if you repeat something long enough, you'll be right. But it's not true.

Vedanta and Physics mmmh lets see................

Source: vedantic-physics.com...
Source: transontology.org...
Source: www.thecircleoffire.com...

You know, when you put up a source, you typically are supposed to post something that you're getting from the source.

First source: over 6000 words.
Second source: nearly 2000 words.
Third source: over 2000 words.

And that's not counting the various links on the websites.

Those aren't sources. That would be like me throwing collected scientific papers on the same subjects at you to disprove your points (which I actually could, I have access to a lot of scientific papers).

Einstein quote : “When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.”

Source:thinkexist.com...
plenty more on request !

Unsourced quote.

You provided a website that didn't actually provide any reference to when or where this was said. I've scoured the internet and found no original source for the quote.

Now, as for Einstein's actual beliefs, I'll let the man speak for himself.

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Letter to Guy H. Raner Jr. (28 September 1949), from article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1997)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman ISBN 0691023689

This is when you put in a source

He clearly worshiped physics and the universe, not some supernatural entity.

reply to post by sykickvision


70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x .5^1000
What I did here was a little amateur statistics. Given all the things that need to go right for life as we KNOW it, let's assume there are only 1,000 qualifications we have to satisfy. Everyone I have asked has said this is a fair number. You can make your own assumptions on that obviously. Also, I've been exceedingly fair (according to those same people, and believe me, I've picked out the widest grouping to ask from) and make the chances of each one of those qualifications happening one out of two. Now I've multiplied it with the number experts say is a likely amount of stars in the universe. Do the math and the answer is the likelihood of all those qualifications being favorable to life (not necessarily even making life). The answer is...
6.5328453295225321529306268130667x10^279 to one against favorable odds for life.
Numbers may be a man made invention like others in this topic have said, but numbers do not lie like man does. Numbers reflect principles of logic and science.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Your analogy is patently absurd. 'Wet' is merely a description of a sensation, life is a great deal more than that. The fundamental forces of physics can not account for conciousness and nothing short of a miraculous or magical revision of those laws could do so. If you believe the universe can be explained adequately by Physics, then I would suggest you haven't understood its implications.

You can explain atoms and molecules forming and grouping together via the interactions of the fundamental forces (primarily electromagnetism) but there is clearly a leap to the formation of the simplest life forms. Life is clearly not the result of 'fundamental' forces.