1. The big bang theory is not _THE_ explanation as you put it, it's a theory. It's a model for how it may have happened based on extrapolations from available data. New data can change it, or blow it out of the water. There can be a bunch of competing theories... but they're all based on something. There's a common view among theists that, because it contradicts religious claims about the world on specific points, science must be equivalent: a top-down world view that tells you why to get out of bed and how to wipe your bum. I'm not a cosmologist, so I don't have a specific answer here, just the comment about approach.

2. Note the link was from a creationist site. Not a biologist, but some people who are will pounce.

3-x Finely-tuned universe/anthropic principle, etc.

Do you notice that all your arguments are based on tearing down science? You have a conclusion in mind, but where is the support for it? 

Yes the site operators also have creationist beliefs - focus on what they say though, and don't use that as an excuse. They actually do cite scientists. I also use a site authored by a Muslim. Look at the facts that the authors present, if the facts are correct, who cares who authored them?

Don't you think it would be absurd for me to expect you to get all of your citations from creationists? I obviously should not and do not. Therefore why do you expect me to get my information from atheists/naturalists as opposed to people that believe in God.

Before I turn to argument, I wish to say:

Hear, hear!

Why must I be burdened with this?

The Absurdity of the Cosmological Argument

Careful. This isn't even an a posteriori statement, just an ad consequentiam. I also think it also commits a false dichotomy fallacy.

The Employment of the False Dichotomy Fallacy and Its Variants In Debate

I suggest you read that from top to bottom, because it puts a clean hole through that argument.

Have you ever studied or pursued neuropsychology? It is quite interesting. And while I have studied neuroscience from a molecular perspective, I confess to knowing little about neuropsychology, but I can help you with this one. Although I hold a qualification in neuroscience (specifically in the areas neurobiology, neurophysiology, cell biology, evo-devo/neurogenesis, VMPFC destruction and FNIRS were unavailable to me when I was doing this. Hence, I shall present you with 34 articles from neuropsychology journals of my distinguished colleagues:

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/17/1/66

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/11/2189

Unofortunately, the rest require a sign-in subscription online, and while I possess most of these journals in print, I have only a few online, and hence, I shall simply direct your attention to the cited articles:

Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donation
PNAS, October 17, 2006; 103(42): 15623 - 15628.

The Role of the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex in Abstract State-Based Inference during Decision Making in Humans.
J. Neurosci., August 9, 2006; 26(32): 8360 - 8367.

Exploring the neurological substrate of emotional and social intelligence
Brain, August 1, 2003; 126(: 1790 - 1800.

Social Cognition and the Prefrontal Cortex
Behav Cogn Neurosci Rev, June 1, 2003; 2(2): 97 - 114.

So, you see? Neuroscientists have a firm handle on why humans behave the way they do.

Coherent Spontaneous Activity Identifies a Hippocampal-Parietal Memory Network
J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2006; 96(6): 3517 - 3531.

Actual inhibition of conscious control, the same area responsible in contralateral coordination of inhibition and decision making with the ACC, fortunately, is an area in which I am better versed, and hence, on the matter I wrote:

I am referring to what modern neuroscientists called apraxia, a situation which results in a longitudinal divide along the corpus callosum in epilepsy patients, which causes the dominant hand of the patient to undergo involuntary movement and uncontrollable motor functions. The hand might undo buttons, light cigarettes, even strike objects without the users control. However, combined magnetoencephelogram scanning and neurophenomenology conducted after Penfield died in 1976 have revealed that this very rare form of epillepsy apraxia is caused by the damage caused to the medial lobes by the incision along the major axis of the brain. There are different brain functions associated with voluntary movement, the cerebellum for proprioception, the grid neuron array for mechanoperception, Acetylocholin-based Somatic and visceral motor neurons which run up the body's planar axis through the center of the spinal cord and into the Sensory Somatic Cortex. The incision along the brain's long axis severs the connection between the lobes controlling movement, with the result that different areas of the brain may at different times be able to command the hand in different ways, but since they are not connected, conscious control over it is lost. Actually, apraxia is often used to make the neurophysiological distinction between intention of execution otherwise known as Executive function (Anterior Cingulate Cortex), and actual execution. In other words, we can show that the self loses control of the hand due to apraxia due to a division along the major long axis of the brain, and although the kinesthetic sensation is there, the sensation of conscious control over the hand is not. For this reason, most neurophysiologists consider that at the supramolecular level, there is an electrophysiological event which translates intent into action. The general area which does this has been pinpointed by fMRI as the medial fronal lobe. Recently, neuroimaging has revealed the area of the brain responsible for decisional inhibition to be in the parietaloccipatal system. The damage or destruction of this system results in the loss of executive functional inhibition, with the result that the subject may lose conscious control over many physiological functions. But since the area of the brain responsible for action is located on the other lobe of the brain, the result of an incision along the corpus callosum will be in rare cases the loss of ability for interagency neurological control over such functions, with apraxia, with the result that a conscious self loses control for periods of time over the limb in question unless treated. Since the brain is a contralateral control system, which means that damage to the posterior medial lobe results in involuntary movement in the opposite function, the same for the parietal-occipatal system, since the corpus callosum is the link between these two areas and the subcortical synaptogenesis which develops when basic motor skills do, the exertation of control over the movement is partitioned into four areas. In other words, we are seeing exactly what we expect to see with an epillepsy patient experiencing apraxia under IET stimulation.

Another false dichotomy is commited regarding probabilities of natural formation of structures, because the calculations make the same error as Dembski's. There is no need to take me through a tutorial of basic astrophysics, because I am quite versed in it, it is not my profession, but, you know, a scientist should always find himself versed in other fields, too, if not necessarily a polymath. Now, allow me to remind myself how many stars exist in the universe.

6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

And planets:

5,000,000,000,000,000,000

And Galaxies:

100,000,000,000

Now, how do such things form?

At the immense temperatures of the Big Bang’s immediate effects, free protons and neutrons collide with such incredible force that the protons bind with neutrons and each other, forming element nuclei, a process called nuclear fusion. However, this can only form elements up to beryllium. Big Bang nucleosynthesis was responsible for the formation of all the nuclei up to of Beryllium-8 isotope, which includes deuterium, helium, lithium and beryllium built successively from free protons and neutrons, then deuterium, then helium, which were created in the immense temperatures of the first several minutes of the Big Bang. The ingredients created by BB Nucleosynthesis form stars, which, as discussed, continue to fuse nuclei to create all the elements up to Iron. When the star dies, it generates such massive energy levels as to create the rest of the elements in the table. Deuterium is highly unstable and almost all of it fuses to create helium. However, the deuterium bottleneck delays this process slightly. Anyway, the gist of BBN is that all the elements to create a star (helium and hydrogen being of primary importance), are there. And then the star can make the rest up to Iron, this is why the process is called the nucleosynthesis bridge. The stars take over from where the BB left off, they start by forming the most important biological element, carbon, by the triple-alpha process, ignition by the proton-proton chain, the other biological elements of oxygen and nitrogen by the C-N-O cycle, silicon, the noble gas neon, and the heavy metal Iron.

After Beryllium-8, the hyperbolic increase in fusion energy levels necessary make it impossible (since the BB nucleosynthesis is very short, only lasting a couple of minutes). That is why the stars need to generate the rest of the elements. The stars can only generate up to iron, the rest of the are produced by the utterly incredible heat of a supernovae which blasts all the elements out into the surrounding area. The process of star death, in other words, is necessary to create life. But if a star takes hundreds of thousands of years to be born, it takes billions to die, for the ignition phase of a star is the longest of it’s life, as the rotating disc continues to accumulate helium, billions of years, the number of billions depending on the size and Hertzsprung-Russell class of the star.

The reason I am telling you all of this is because it is absurd to claim that the process by which the elements which make up everything we see could occur over anything less then millions of years, if not billions. True, the basic ingredients for Stellar nucleosynthesis to begin formed within 17 minutes, but as for the stellar burning itself, this is not exactly a rapid process. Stars are known for their longevity, and they will continue to burn hydrogen into helium until they run out of hydrogen, and this process is not exactly short either, and then they have to go through the last cycle of their life to form the elements after Iron, and these elements need to be distributed by a supernovae for terrestrial planets to form.

The birth of a star (which we have seen) is one of the most public and obvious things to happen in the universe. A budding astronomer with a telescope can see that the Orion Nebulae has a hazy patch in the middle of the Sword, part of the Perseus Molecular Cloud Nebulae chain, the patch is from the brightest star within, the NGC1333. Inside the nebulae chain is a massive dark swirl of gas that are collapsing under the pull of gravity to become rotating gas disks that condense into Yellow dwarves, like our sun. The dark patches around the star are filled with an infrared glow, as young stars condense, they shoot out massive jets of hot gas back into the nebulae cloud, which produces a glow visible from Earth. Even with your eyes, you can watch stars being born, very slowly, as the process takes millions of years, but you can watch snapshots of it nonetheless, since many different stars are in different stages of formation. A cloud of diffuse hydrogen undergoes gravitational instability, hence forming a gravity well, it begins to spin and acts like a gas jet, accumulating hydrogen. The gas cloud begins to take shape as it collapses under its own gravitational force. When the cloud has finally achieved hydrostatic equilibrium (unidirectional equivalent pressure), a protostar, the precursor of a star, forms in the centre of the cloud, and these newly born stars continually emit huge jets of gas from their core, which looks something like this:

 

3. The main sequence of a star’s life cycle is the achievement of a high enough temperature that fusion may begin, whereby it begins to burn all of it’s hydrogen and fuse it to make helium. Our sun is currently halfway through this process. The star spends this time converting all the hydrogen to helium, and the length of time it spends doing this depends on how much hydrogen it has to burn, which depends on the Hertzsprung Russell class of the star.

4. The next sequence of the star’s life is required for the generation of the elements necessary for biology, Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and iron. When the star has exhausted it’s ignition hydrogen it begins to expand into a Red giant, and tremendous heat and pressure is applied to the core area of the star, which allows the process of helium fusion to begin, to create heavier elements. Heavier elements still must be generated by the largest stars, which expand into Red hypergiants (Betelgeuse is a good example). The temperatures here are sufficient to fuse carbon, and continue the nucleosynthesis bridge up to iron.

5. However, it is the collapse of the star which generates the necessary temperature and pressure conditions necessary to a) complete the nucleosynthesis bridge b) distribute this material. The destroyed layers of the dying star are stripped off and recycled to make new stars and planets, while a glowing pulsar is left in its place.

So...we can show and observethat cosmological structures form naturally. Where does God come into the equation?

Abiogenesis is ultimately something in which I am better versed, being that biochemistry is something I routinely use. (You can truly see how sick I am of dealing with this). I would reccomend referring back to the false dichotomy paper. THen look at this (If I were reading this, it would be dully monotonous due to the number of times having posted it, which is really my own fault since I never turned it into a formal essay:

Abiogenesis is poorly understood by many people, as if it were an impossible event of pure chance and luck and "goop" and other derogatory phrases so oft-used by those who do not understand it. Complete nonsense. In terms of complexity of process, chemical evolution, the natural process by which proto-biological polymers may form is on par complexity with biological evolution. Allow me to explain:

 

I suppose that before beginning to explain why, an explanation of fundamental concepts is in order. To understand evolutionary and pre-evolutionary (abiogenesis) mechanisms, we need a very deep understanding of genes and proteins. Since an advanced expalantion of evolutionary genetics is covered in an essay I am writing called Hox Flow Mechanisms and Their Effect on Evolutionary Phenotypes and Structures the bulk of this essay will be about proteins. Why genes and proteins? The relationship between genes and proteins, and their interactions with RNA is deep and ancient. Many times have I said that only someone who truly understands the interlocking three pillars of molecular biology with the depth that comes with years of study is the only person who has any right to comment on the validity of the theory that life evolves and arose from proto-biological replicators.

Essentially, a protein is a string of amino acids, usually 500-2000 amino acids long. The whole of life depends on proteins. Everything else, save the genes, is a mere passive bystanders in a biological dance of life. When we observe the cell, we are in essence observing proteins. Proteins control movement (motor proteins), the control structure (structural proteins), they control concentration (transmembrane proteins), they control ion gradients (pump proteins), and most importantly, they control every single chemical reaction in the body (enzymes). Proteins don't just control the body, they are the body. All proteins fold up tightly into one highly preferred conformation. There is no limit to the number of tasks they do in the cell. Proteins can be subdivided into two large classes, the globular proteins fold up into irregular ball-like shapes and fibrous proteins. Nearly all globular proteins are allosteric, which means they can adopt two slightly different conformations, this means they have two binding sites, one of which is for a regulatory molecule, and the other is for the substrate. Allosteric control is very complex. Suffice it to say for now that it works on either negative or positive feedback (ie the regulatory molecule increases the protein's affinity for the substrate, and the other way around, or the opposite, the regulatory molecule decreases protein affinity for the substrate, which of course, would be reciprocal. In this way, regulatory molecules can turn the protein on or off, and in negative control, there is a tug of war between the regulatory ligand and substrate which are reciprocally affected by each others concentration in the cell.

A short summary of biological proteins would look like this:

A protein is a specific type of biological polymer made up a specific family of chemical subunits called amino acids. There are 20 biological amino acids, and they are distinguished by the fact that they all have a central alpha carbon, which is attached to an amine group (-NH2), a Carboxyl group (-COOH), a hydrogen, and a side chain. It is the side chain that gives each amino acid its properties, and each of the 20 has a different side chain. Proteins can be anything in length. Usually it is 50-2000 amino acids long, and the longest ones can 7000 amino acids long. The interaction between the side chains (which is determined by charge, since three are basic, four are acidic, nine are nonpolar and five are polar but uncharged) determines the shape of the protein. For instance, the nonpolar side chains are all hydrophobic (water hating) which means the protein will fold up in a manner where the nonpolar side chains are facing inwards and not exposed to water (this is the most energetically favorable conformation). This is just one of many different subtle interplays between amino acids that determine a proteins shape. However, nearly all proteins fold spontaneously in a solution, indicating that all the information necessary to fold it is stored in the amino acids.

Proteins are:

Structural: All large structures in the body are almost certainly composed of structural proteins. Adding repeated protein subunits allows for geometric assembly of thousands of structures. For example tubulin can, by readdition of the tubulin subunit, assemble the microtubules of the cell. Actin is a fibrous, ropelike protein that can assemble into fibrils, like most fibrous proteins, which is a long sheet of fibers arrayed together. Actin is the fiber responsible for muscle contraction, another example is elastin, which is made of a loosely bound collection of elastin polypeptide chains, which, when bonded to each other, make a rubber like sheet that gives skin its property of stretching without tearing. Many structural proteins can self-assemble just by the repeated addition of a single protein. For example, the capsid, which is the coat of a virus, is a spherical structure which is made by no more than 60 identical proteins added together to make a perfect sphere.

Enzymatic: Globular proteins function as enzymes, which speed up all the body's chemical reactions. Enzymes are better catalysts than anything man has, and can speed up a reaction by a factor of 100,000,000,000,000 (100 trillion). They control the rate of the thousands of reactions in the cell, and by regulation and coordination and feedback loops, create massive, intricate metabolic pathways. All enzymes have an active site, which the molecule to be catalyzed (any molecule that binds to a protein is called a ligand) attaches to for catalyzation of whatever reaction is needed. Usually enzymes operate in steps, so the product of one enzyme becomes the target for the next, in this case, the molecule is called a substrate.

Transmembrane: Proteins can be arrayed across the membrane of the cell and control the concentration of various chemicals inside, allowing certain chemicals in and out. They are usually powered by ATP hydrolysis and usually control the flow of small ions like calcium and potassium. Trasmembrane proteins are technically a class of motor proteins, which are detailed below. Transmembrane proteins are important in cell regulation and enzyme kinetics. In muscles they are particularly important as it is the flow of Calcium ions out that powers the muscle contraction. They are very important in neurons and synaptic vescicles as the flow of ions (calcium, potassium and chloride) is what creates the energy gradient which holds the information the neuron is carrying.

Motor proteins: All proteins have precisely engineered moving parts, but motor proteins especially so, since a tiny movement has to induce a major conformational change. For instance, the protein myosin has to control muscle contraction, which, as you can imagine, is a tremendous organizational problem. Many motor proteins have the very impressive ability to “walk” across structures like microtubules and DNA polymers. This is an autocatalytic inbuilt function of the protein. It results from the protein having three distinct conformations, and the protein switches between them via ATP hydrolysis. Since ATP hydrolysis is extremely energetically favorable, the protein is forced to move in one direction, since ADP condensation is almost certainly not going to occur. The protein is forced forward by a catalyst called Adenine nucleotide exchange factor, which releases the ADP after hydrolysis causing an ATP to bind to the regulatory site almost immediately. In this way the protein is forced from conformation 1 to conformation 2 to conformation 3 and then back to conformation 1 and so on.

This cell’s wall will be studded with transmembrane proteins which control things coming in and out of the cell (organic molecules in, waste gas out). Meanwhile, inside the cell, enzymes will be running the day-to-day operations of the cell. Structures inside the cell (usually made of proteins) needed to maintain it will be being broken down, assembled, and repaired in a series of complex pathways all controlled by enzymes. Meanwhile, the cell needs energy and raw materials, so it imports organic molecules (aka “food) and breaks it down into simple subunits (this process is controlled by enzymes) which are then used for energy (a process which is also controlled by enzymes) or used to construct large cellular structures (this is also controlled by enzymes). For all this to happen requires a lot of chemical messages to fly between lots of different parts of the cell so that the cooperative process keeps going, and all different cellular projects are in communication and taking cues from the environment for what to do (these processes are controlled by signal integrating proteins, signal amplifying proteins and signal transducing proteins).

Controlling all this is the genetic code. The genetic code holds the “master key” to all the proteins. The rate at which proteins are assembled from genes is controlled by other genes, which in turn usually end up being controlled by other genes. Since proteins work in teams, the concentration of each different protein, as controlled by the genetic code, affects the cell as a whole. Most of the time, the demand for various products operates on a feedback loop. If a product is needed, it triggers a stimulus which sends a message to the genetic template. This can result in a particular gene being switched on or off or increasing rate of production or decreasing or a host of other things.

In other words, the genetic code of a cell functions like a microprocessor. It takes input from the environment, processes it, and delivers an output. In this way, the whole balance of the cell can be controlled by the genes. However, this analogy is not entirely accurate since the relation between proteins and genes are reciprocal ie proteins can control genes (these are called DNA binding proteins).

Now, onto protein generation.

This (protein assemblage) too, is not chance. The simpleton would assume that favorable formations of protein assemblage whereby the natural quaternery state would arise is affixed the same probability as a useless denatured amino acid string. That is ridiculous, and has been debunked by the Miller-Urey experiment. Not the old Miller-Urey as cited in the above article. THat was old, 1950s era. At the Scripp's institute several years back, they recreated it, rectifying the Methane/Methyl conc in the atmospheric gas mixture (because cyanobacteria alter Earth's atmosphere, recall) Insofar as the nucleic acids and proteins of cellular mechanisms are primary life (ie they are capable of self-assembly), they undergo their own natural selection. This was demonstrated as far back as 1936 when Alexander Oparin showed that in an anoxic atmosphere, organic molecular structures of the basic primary state would combine to construct elaborate complex macromolecular giants which themselves were capable of reassembly.

And then in 1961, Joan Oro, A spanish biochemist, cracked the adenine conjecture when he showed that the prebiotic nucleotide can assemble from hydrogen cyanide. Upon examination of comet traces, he concluded that comet fragments could have easily brought organic molecules to Earth. This in effect would merge Abiogenesis with panspermia except without the space aliens nonsense. His research paved the way for several more experiments, where the prebiotic synthesis of the other bases, thymine, guanine and cytosine, were demonstrated. After all, what makes a protein successful? A protein is just a catalyst, whose amino acid configuration allows it to fold up in a quaternery state where it serves as multiple active sites. Only polypeptides with certain strings of amino acids acheive this state. But, as the macromolecular covalescence occurs, might protein undergo it's own natural selection? Where proteins that "work" would survive in place of the denaturing ones? After all, we now understand due to the RNA world hypothesis the bulk of the processes behind the formation of proto-biological pathways like glycolysis and photosynthesis, and that the nucleotide handle on nearly all of the carriers (like Uridine Diphosphate Glucose and Acetyl CoA are due to the electrolytical interaction with RNA proto-biological structures, especially for UDP)

Onto the next topic, I have indeed heard (many times) the Fine Turning Argument. Is this the correct explanation of it, that I wrote?

On the Anthropic Principle.

The reader may wish to read this before introducing himself to this topic:

Before immersing himself in this one. The anthropic principle has the distinction of being the a posteriori argument for God which I was least impressed with. It notices that the universe, and this planet in particular, are extraordinarily fine-tuned for the existence of biological systems, which, due to the fact that they are extremely low systems of entropy, are highly sensitive, and cannot exist in most of the incredibly violent and volatile reaches of the universe. At any rate, the physical constants of this universe which affect the existence of biological systems can be distilled to six numbers. Just six numbers. Those are:

Epsilon: The fusion ration of hydrogen to helium. In our universe, this is 0.007, precisely correct. If it were off, say, to 0.008, too high, then all hydrogen would immediately fuse, and there would none left over from the big bang, and hence life could never get started, if it was slightly lower then the universe would remain in freezing darkness since stars could never condense and generate nucleosynthesis fusion, creating the heavy elements necessary for life (oxygen, carbon, iron)

Omega: Relative density of the universe. This is precisely fine-tuned, the overall density of the universe, if too small, the universe would expand and freeze before life could begin. If too large, the universe would collapse almost as soon as it began, crushing back into the fiery pinprick from whence it came.

That the universe is expanding depends on the density of the universe, and the two constants associated, Omega (Ω) and Lambda (λ). This is not to be confused with Lambda in physics, which represents wavelength. In cosmology it has another meaning. At any rate, Newton’s equations, which work perfectly until they disintegrate at the quantum level, dictate that all material bodies have a force of attraction between them which is precisely proportional to the distance between them and the size of the body in question. This is Newton’s Inverse Square Law. Since Einsten’s General Relativity, we have understood that this works because gravity is caused by the distorting effect of material on spacetime, However, surely this means that all material bodies should quickly rush towards each other and crush into a fiery pinprick? No. The reason for this is because the universe, as in space-time itself, is expanding. As we have discovered, the universe is expanding due to Dark matter. Now, this is where Omega comes into play. The density of matter in the universe will determine Omega. Since all material bodies attract, and the expansion of space time forces them apart, there is a fight between Dark Energy and matter, and the density of matter over the universe will determine its ultimate fate.

Now, if Omega is precisely zero, then the acceleration of the universe and the gravity of matter will be in precise equilibrium and thus the universe will expand at a precise constant rate. If Omega is smaller than one then the expansion of the universe will wind down, and if it is precisely one, the universe will simply wind down and stop expanding, and if Omega is greater than one, then the density of matter will be overpowering and the universe will accelerate and then crush back into a fiery pinprick, as the universe rushes backwards into a fiery pinprick by parabolic expansion and then contraction.

Lambda: The cosmological constant determining the acceleration rate of the universe. Any larger than it is (0.7), and the universe would be blown apart by Dark Energy, any smaller and it would quickly crush itself into a fireball. The Hubble constant is precisely equal to one (Omega+ Lambda).

D: The number of spatial dimensions. Our universe, of course, has three. This is the most conduicive to life. If there are more, the inverse square law is replaced by an inverse cube law, and hence, the motion of planets becomes too erratic for the long stretches of stability needed for life. If there are less, say two, then the advanced computational systems for life cannot develop, as the possibilites are too few. It is much harder to store information in two dimensions than in three (think of integrated circuits) For example, the human mind depends on massive networks of neurons . Biological structures would have great difficulty assembling in two dimensions.

Q: Must recall. Keep forgetting it.

N: The force of electromagnetism divided by gravity. It is 10^36, which shows how pathetic gravity is (you can cancel Earth's gravity by electromagnetism by picking up shavings with static from your comb). But if it were slightly off, by a mere knife's edge of balance between the two...then any structure on order larger than a fermion would quickly and quite violently be rent asunder by the extreme power of electromagnetism.

The Goldilocks Zone: This pertains to the situation of precise tuning the Earth finds itself in regarding its stability and friendliness to life. For one, obviously, it is placed precisely in a small band of temperature ranges from its star such that water does not freeze or boil (0 to 100C). Water is probably not absolutely necessary for life, but is surely the best molecule conduicive to its formation. For one, its a permanent dipole, which is what gives it its properties and an electrical charge without which no biomolecular system could function (ion channels, proton gradients, DNA, cytokines, signal integrators, molecular switches and protein folding all rely on this principle), this charge is also conduicive to abiogenesis, the formation of proto-replicating biomolecules.

Another such useful fine-tuning comes in the form of Earth’s natural satellite, the moon. Tides may play a role in electrophosophorylation and the alternating charge and wetting and drying of primordial biological molecules (see clay theory), and its rotation and orbit keep Earth’s orbit stable. Without it, it would become erratic every several hundred million years, and would flip over. Obviously, such conditions would destroy any DNA forming, which takes perhaps as much as half a billion years.

particle charge is dictated by one of the four fundamental forces in the universe, which is the electromagnetic force, an extremely strong force generated at the subatomic level. Weinberg and Salam showed that it could be unified to the weak nuclear force. It is caused by a particle exchange between the three leptons, which are electrons, photons and nuetrinos (ghost-like particles which can pass through trillions of miles of solid lead without interaction), photons are wavelike bundles which generate light by an electric field oscillating at a transverse to a magnetic field 50/s. Electrical fields are generated by the interchangal of large particles called W and Z bosons between neutrinos and electrons, and the field generated is necessary for the formation of the photon.

This is all standard model quantum physics. In relevance to the Big Bang, the four forces that unify the universe were once unified into a mysterious singularity called a symmetry.

A symmetry in physics equations is generated by the ability to interchange expressions in an equation. Thanks to Weinberg and Salam, we can interchange all three leptons in an electric field, which gives it SU(3) symmetry. The ruling of the universe is dictated by SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) symmetry, regarding the simplest particles that make up the universe. In the singularity during the Planck era of the universe (10^-43 seconds), the collapse of the false vacuum led to the breaking of the symmetry from SU(5) to what we see today. Symmetry breaking is not properly understood, and very difficult to solve. We think it was a "virtual quantum event" that caused it via tunnelling (this violates a lot of classical Newtonian laws, but the Heisenberg Uncertainity allows it, since it is extremely small and only occurs for about 10^-45 seconds. This caused the false vacuum fluctation, and the symmetry broke. Gravity was the first force to disengage, giving a SU(4) x U(1) symmetry. The breaking off of the other three, including electromagnetism, generated the asymmetry we see today, which explains why the electron has a negative charge (the electromagnetic force).

There was no charge in the symmetry. None at all. Remember, the universe is ex nihilo. Actually, it may astonish you to learn that there is no charge in the entire universe. The electromagnetic force works both ways, it attracts and it repels (unlike gravity, which is purely attractive). It's attraction/repulsion is very, very precisely balanced, to the tune of 10^-32 electron volts difference, which is probably experimental error. This is good because the electromagnetic force is tremendously powerful, almost 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times more powerful than gravity (this explains why you can cancel the entire gravity of the Earth by picking up bits of paper with the static electricty of your comb). And that means that if the electromagnetic force was any less balanced, you would be ripped to shreds instantly.

This is excellent evidence for ex nihilo creation. There is no charge in the universe, which can only be explained that there was no charge in the vacuum.

 

Now, from there, if you continue with Penrose's explanation (have you ever read Reese' Just Six Numbers?) what was the conclusion that he drew? It wasn't God. I'll give you a little hint:

 

In the essay I am writing called On the Anthropic Principle, (you just read a piece of it) I discuss Lee Smolin’s Loop quantum gravity and his theory of how multiverses evolved to gradually become more suitable to have the constants necessary for the evolution of biological structures. In short, if multiverse could tie in with the evidence for inflation, answer the fine-tuning problem, it would be a better hypothesis (soon to be crowned theory) than God. The difference between this and the absurdity of God is that it is testable and falsifiable. It does not break the entropy laws (as God does), it does not appeal to magic or fallacy. It checks out, in short.

 

Need I then say more?

And...let us then not forget there are problems with the opposing hypothesis as well: Did I not outline them in your other thread?

Quote:

5. Fallacy of the Argument that Atheism/Naturalism is the base position - I believe that it is a fallacy to state that your stance is the "base" position. Your attempts at proving a naturalist origin of the universe and life force you to make a number of claims. As I said before, the burden of proof is on BOTH the atheist and the theist. You often fall back on the "prove it to me" logic when faced with a debate. You yourselves fall into the logical trap that you say theist fall into. You say - there is insufficient evidence for X therefore X does not exist. This is not better than me saying that there is insufficient evidence against X therefore X exists.

Wrong way around::

The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses

Now, if you would be so kind as to remember what naturalism is. It is not a philosophical stance per se. Just like atheism is not an idea per se. They are, rather, negative stances defined only in opposition to preexisting concepts. Without theism, atheism would be a non sequitur. Without supernaturalism, naturalism as a distinct iidea would be a non sequitur. In epistemology, need I remind you, there is no such thing, at all, as burden of disproof, and that, is where you shall find the above link proves its usefulness.

The ad ignorantium really comes because, even with unanswerable problems regarding the universe, the invocation of the "supernatural, "God" etc ad infinitum, with whatever euphemisms you wish to attach, do not solve anything. They are not solutions in any sense of the word (they beg the question anyway). Uncomfortably, cross-examination of theistic explanations simply revelas that they do not actually mean anything, nor do they establish anything whatsoever. Actually, they end up with a more problematic conjecture than that which they attempt to solve. I believe I already established that in the links I put up in the other thread. This took me ages to slog through, so bear with me here. But "There is no materialist account for X" is ad ignorantium and you know it, because "X therefore God" is meaningless, in any true sense of the word.

 

Only if the odds are calculated in a deceptive manner.

I can't remember who said it, but it was pointed out that when you go to the store and park next to the car, the odds that you would park next to the exact car that you did, of all of the millions/billions of vehicles in this world, are mind boggling. However (and this is my own elaboration), if you look at the circumstances, the people in the immediate area, the convenience of the time of day, the reason for seeking the parking space in the area of the lot that you did, the pattern of parking spaces being filled and emptied, and so on, the odds are well within reasonable limits, and the fact is that you had a say in the space in which you parked and you had to park somewhere.

Obviously you have two primary ways of presenting these odds, regarding the parking space. There's the first, which is disingenuously over-simplified but valid in it's own right, and there is the later which is more technically correct but does not carry the same impact and demands greater levels of thinking to understand.

 

There was a special on the Discovery Channel(?) not long ago that addressed this pretty specifically. Modern man did not come about fully formed; there were a number of other human-like species, with varying degrees of different traits. Our survival strategy is in our intelligence and our numbers. The species that had greater emotional bonds with one another cared for eachother more, and thus did more to keep eachother alive and well. The less empathy the species had, the quicker they went extinct, and the more empthy they had the longer they survived - this is essentially on a gradient, with us as the ones that survived the longest.

Creationists like to make evolution out to be a matter of one single set of traits being the only way a species could possibly survive, and this is a clear misrepresentation of the truth. Not every animal is predatory, they're not all lions and tigers and bears. Don't forget all of the very passive animals, whose survival strategy is to hide, run, or outsmart those that would hunt them, and have done so well enough to keep their species alive even longer than humans, in some cases. Lets also not forget that some animals also show the same kind of compassion that we do. There are some "lesser" species that bury their dead and then grieve for them. They form tight family bonds, and do everything in their power to keep that family alive.

Asking these questions is always fair, but asserting that things like evolution couldn't possibly be true simply because you are not aware of the answers is beyond foolish.

We're not born with notions of gods, we are given those notions after we are old enough to comprehend them. Those that don't grow up without knowing of any god or gods don't develop them spontaneously. You really only need to look at different cultures for evidence of this. If we were born with these notions, we wouldn't expect to see the variety of gods and the plethora of different denominations of each religion. At any rate, it is the default position, as it is what we're born with - no particular belief or disbelief in anything, and that is all "atheism" is.

We, atheists, are not the ones making the claim. Obviously you would ask for proof from anyone professing the existence of a different god - you would demand proof of krishna, allah, horus, zeus, thor, or any other. You wouldn't take the burden of proof to disprove them, and nor would we as athiests, as we cannot disprove something for which there is no evidence or rational basis for. We know you don't see it that way, but you need to understand that your claim to us is absolutely, positively, 100% exactly the same as someone asserting that zeus is the one true god. If you want us to consider your claim then you need to provide some rational basis for it, otherwise we simply have no reason to consider it.

Incorrect, and I don't think many will take kindly to having words put into their mouth. We say there is insufficient evidence, period. Without evidence, or even a rational basis, there is simply no reason to take the issue further. Provide even the most basic evidence or rational basis to believe and you will find most people willing to listen and consider your point of view. Unfortunately there have been no such arguments presented, even after 2000 years of some of the world's smartest people devoting their lives to trying to find such arguments. Anyone wishing to attempt to do so now has their work cut out for them, for sure.

You might spend some time looking through previous threads. You will likely get some terse responses in this thread, as you have not presented any arguments that have not been repeatedly and continuously beaten to death, so don't be surprised.

 

 

The only thing the majority of atheists are sure of, to my knowledge, is not knowing.  There is no way to know what could possibly exist in terms of a supposed "god" character.  Trying to narrow that down to one concept is extremely silly to myself, and I am sure, most others here.

 

But with what you just said in the above quote, how would a definite concept of god be possible with how supposedly little we know?

So maybe these scientists know a little more about the subject than you and have good reasons to formulate their specific theories. (no insult, I really mean it)

good questions. well, maybe the subject can't be put that simply. instead of saying "I don't understand it, therefore it can't be true", why don't you just get a textbook on the subject and read for yourself about it, ask your teachers or professors or read trough the plenty of essays that you can get here on this site.

No, it doesn't. what you state here shows the very problem I have with theism:

saying "I don't know how it happend, so it must have been a miracle/god". Are you satisfied with such a worldview? I'm not. and so aren't the scientists you name. if they would have been, scientific progress would have stopped long ago.

 

 

Actually, I disagree that the net energy/charge of the universe being 0 is evidence for ex-nihlo.

 

 

 

 This is also compatiable with quantum flucuation from an already existing universe, since the net energy of quantum flucuations, is well, 0.

 

 

Thank you deludedgod for that very well written article, unfortunately it is stretched a little bit too far to the right on my browser so several words are cut off and I cannot quote you.

Please respond to this - NATURALISM is a position that requires proof. I am not saying that you must proove your disbelief (prove your atheism) rather that you must prove naturalism, which ties together with atheism.

Clearly you have done your research on the matter quite extensively and have faced many similar questions in the past. As for me, it is going to take a few weeks minimum to go over everything that has been brought up. Each time I will come back more prepared though. I enjoy the challenge that this forum presents and don't mind losing a few arguments.

Don't forget that there are very few theists here which makes this an impossible debate to win. Clearly I am not going to convince anyone here, and I doubt anyone will convince me. I challenge anyone here to go on any site with theist astrophysicist or biologist, chemists, etc. Such sites do exist. I will be sure to find such discussion forums and direct you there. This is if you want a challenge, because I'm a bit of a pushover.

I apologize for the fact that my arguments are far from perfect, but lets be realistic here, I am just trying to start a discussion, if you want to disprove me, let your facts speak. And I want to thank everyone so far for holding back on the personal attacks, it really says a lot for your arguments when you do that.

naturalism is not tied to atheism.

Also, because as people have mentioned that atheist and naturalist aren't the same term, you can probably find an atheist that believes in supernatural or paranormal things.   That person may not find enough evidence in any of the cases presented for god, but might still not be as skeptical about, say, ghosts.   For some people, cold spots in old buildings, doors slamming, hearing noises, etc. ARE their "proof" that doesn't shut out the possibility of paranormal occurances. 

Even if you removed the term atheist, and JUST focused on naturalist.  Wouldn't that be a relatively easy thing for a naturalist to gather supporting evidence for?  Prove what exists? Nature? Natural processes?   We can find that! (tons of it!)   If you kept score it'd be like, what, nature: everything to god: zero?

One thing always amazes me when I read about these estimates. There is an implicit assumption that if you vary one of these constants, all the others have to remain constant. Why would it have to be so? If you're assuming that one of them could change, why not all of them, at the same time? (Yes I realize that people do that because that is easier, and it gives you these numbers of probability with which you can dazzle the scientifically illiterate.) Why can't there be a whole array of combinations of values for these constants which gives you stable configurations (livable universes)? Considering this, why is it even considered up to the atheist to have to play defence against the theists' "argument" from lack of imagination?

 

One more thing in connection to this. I never ever see any estimates from the creationists/ID people about the probability that this god would exist. They say "oh look how improbable everything is blah blah". Well, if so, then why do you postulate something even more improbable as the solution? If they're right, this god would have to be incredibly complex to be able to calculate all these possibilities and possible outcomes, and what they would mean for the universe, and then create the universe. So how probable is it that such a thing would exist? Once they give a number for that (that's not based on speculation or presuppositions), then we could actually discuss the validity of the claim.

 

In addition to this rant, I agree with deludedgod.