It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
" The Symbiotic Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos
by George Greenstein
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1988
George Greenstein, professor of astronomy at Amherst College, believes we are faced with a mystery, and one of immense significance. In his fascinating new book, The Symbiotic Universe, he argues that our existence, and indeed that of every other form of life, is an utterly astonishing thing. The deeper one looks, the more surprising it becomes that life ever arose in the cosmos. For in fact our existence depends on a network of unlikely circumstances, a remarkable series of coincidences. That they occurred at all is testimony that ours is fundamentally a universe of life. In looking for an explanation, Professor Greenstein begins with an insight suggested by the theory of quantum mechanics. He proposes that in the fitness of the cosmos for life, we are witnessing the effects of a gigantic symbiosis– a symbiosis between the physical universes on the one hand and life on the other. Between these two there is a union, a great metaphysical dance by which each supports the other. How did it come to pass that against all odds the cosmos succeeded in bringing forth life? It had to –in order to exist.
“So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance. But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort..."
"Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
“I also believe that reference to God will never suffice to explain a single one of these discoveries. God is not an explanation."
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by edmc^2
I understand your point and even though I disagree I have to admit that it is tempting to believe the way you do. However, I have a serious problem with just assuming it is a loving entity that has done it and that he is a God and not just a more powerful, longer lived entity then we are.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Why do they call it the "Goldilocks Zone"?
Is it just by coincidence that we're in this specific zone?
Originally posted by EnochWasRight Rational minds would never discount the possibility if they were honestly looking for truth
Originally posted by EnochWasRightThe larger picture is a divine Creator.
When presented scientific facts in support of a Creator, their mind somehow crumbles
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by EnochWasRight Rational minds would never discount the possibility if they were honestly looking for truth
Rational Minds also don't make baseless assumptions just because something's possible.
Originally posted by EnochWasRightThe larger picture is a divine Creator.
Such as this. As I've illustrated, the argument that the Universe is Finely Tuned for life(Which maybe would point to a picture of a Creator) is bunk(And therefore is not something that can be interpreted as evidence for a creator.)
~
I know you're the type to take things done by known scientists(Such as the We're all connected video), and extrapolate things out of it that none of the people who were a part of would ever agree with. I'm not gonna go into all you're ridiculous extrapolations. They're both irrelevant to the topics Fine Tuned Universe argument, and overall redundant. Save those for your own topics, where others will address them.
Originally posted by CB328
When presented scientific facts in support of a Creator, their mind somehow crumbles
You mean the fact that 99.99999% of the universe is completely uninhabitable by people???
My problem with the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe is that the argument is that it is very similar to Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological Argument. Despite the lack of empirical evidence to support the a priori conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed, one concludes it must have been merely because we can conceive of an intelligent designer for it. This is not scientific reasoning. And in science, not accepting or even acknowledging a theory that has no empirical evidence to back it up is not closed mindedness.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by madhatr137
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon?
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by madhatr137
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon?
You know, you've got no one convinced that Moses, or any other biblical writer exhibited any knowledge of Carbon, or DNA. I don't think anyone see's your reasoning in completely reinterpreting scripture to apply present knowledge, and then acting as if the scripture had that knowledge.
Also, Moses, if he existed at all, did not live "2000 years ago." Your wording implies you're talking about Moses there.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by edmc^2
I understand your point and even though I disagree I have to admit that it is tempting to believe the way you do. However, I have a serious problem with just assuming it is a loving entity that has done it and that he is a God and not just a more powerful, longer lived entity then we are.
It's not an assumption friend but based on facts evidence by observation.
Case in point - location of the planet earth.
Why do they call it the "Goldilocks Zone"?
Is it just by coincidence that we're in this specific zone?
Consider also the neighboring planets and Galaxies - did they just came to be there or were they strategically placed there? For what reason?
Any idea?
tc.edit on 6-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: put - place
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to [url= by madhatr137[/url]
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon?
You know, you've got no one convinced that Moses, or any other biblical writer exhibited any knowledge of Carbon, or DNA. I don't think anyone see's your reasoning in completely reinterpreting scripture to apply present knowledge, and then acting as if the scripture had that knowledge.
Also, Moses, if he existed at all, did not live "2000 years ago." Your wording implies you're talking about Moses there.
The man in the cave 2000 years ago was John in the first century.
Originally posted by Prezbo369
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to [url= by madhatr137[/url]
Then again, a man in a cave, 2000 years ago, knew Carbon had 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons. He further knew that God told us not to mess with the fruit of knowledge and life. How did Moses know to write about DNA and Carbon?
The man in the cave 2000 years ago was John in the first century.
Neither John or any of the anonymous biblical authors knew to wash their hands after taking a dump, and thought bird blood cured leprosy (house leprosy too; wall mould) .
But yurp Superiorenochwaswrong , they knew all about DNA and molecules didn't they.......
To the OP
A fine tuned universe? are you joking? its 99.999999999% instantly lethal to life
edit on 7-4-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)