Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[otseng]

The more planets there are, the greater the probability that there will be life.

I would add "hospitable" to that. We have many planets in our solar system, but only one is hospitable for life to possibly exist.

Now, lets assume the probability of life even smaller. If the probability of life in a star system were one in 800 trillion, then the expected number of galaxies in the universe with at least one planet with life would be almost 84 million.

You see, while the probability of life in any one specific place is infinitesimally small, the vastness of the universe can make it quite likely.

It all depends on the values for the probability for life arising and on the number of hospitable planets. Certainly if the number of hospitable planets is greater than the odds of life arising, then there would be a good chance of alien life. But, if the number of hospitable planets is very low (which I presented my argument above), then there would not be much chance for alien life.

Further, though I have not seen any calculations for the odds of life arising, I would surmise it to be incredibly low, if not zero.

This creationist seems to be fudging his numbers to make his case, or does he not realize that under the current models of the origin of life, there was not sufficient free oxygen to support the current forms of life.

As for an early atmosphere with no oxygen, if there was water, oxygen would be generated by ultraviolet radiation hitting water molecules. So, the only way there would be no oxygen would be if there was also no water. Further, if there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer. With no ozone layer, the amount of UV radiation would be much greater, which would generate more oxygen from water. Unfiltered UV would also be damaging to any cells, even if they did happen to spontaneously arise.

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants

Certainly dimensionless constants is a subset of the fine-tuning parameters, but unless one can derive all the fine-tuning parameters from these 6 constants, it would only be a subset of the fine-tuning parameters.

However, the point is not about how many parameters there are, even though creationists deceptively try to multiply them, but how to explain them.

I would not say that anyone is trying to deceptively multiply them. The discovery of fine-tuning parameters I would say is primarily from non-creationists.

The God hypotheses explains this improbable event by positing an even more improbable entity.

Please provide how you calculate the improbability of God.

And the only possible universe hypothesis depends on as yet undiscovered fundamental principles.

I would not classify this as being much better than "I don't know" or "None of the above".

I fail to see how emphasizing just how improbable the set of parameters is gets us any closer to determining an answer to how it occurred.

As the odds of something get diminishingly small and yet the event occurs, we commonly then attribute the cause to an intelligent source, not a random event.

If the expected number of highly developed life forms in the universe is close to 1, it still does not mean that if we are the one that we necessarily inhabit a privileged spot.

I'm not saying right now that we are at a privileged spot (though I might argue for that in the future). I'm only pointing out that we are privileged observers. If we are the only observers, I would mean we are unique and special observers.

"The Copernican Principle is a basic statement in physics that there should be no 'special' observers."
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/c ... ciple.html

Yes, limited only to the question of alien life forms. If we don't find any, neither of us can claim victory. If we do find one, I win.

Well, I'm not "claiming victory". But, given that there is no evidence for aliens and that there is evidence for the improbability of aliens, it more be more rational to take the position that aliens do not exist.

[McCulloch]

We have many planets in our solar system, but only one is hospitable for life to possibly exist.

Eight is many?

Now, lets assume the probability of life even smaller. If the probability of life in a star system were one in 800 trillion, then the expected number of galaxies in the universe with at least one planet with life would be almost 84 million.

You see, while the probability of life in any one specific place is infinitesimally small, the vastness of the universe can make it quite likely.

It all depends on the values for the probability for life arising and on the number of hospitable planets. Certainly if the number of hospitable planets is greater than the odds of life arising, then there would be a good chance of alien life.

I don't quite understand this comparison. The number of hospitable planets in the universe would be an integer (1, 2, 3 etc). The odds of life arising on any hospitable planet is a ratio, inclusively a value between zero and one. Now, if we multiply the number of hospitable planets in the universe with the odds of life arising on a hospitable planet, we will get the expected number of inhabited planets. We both agree that the odds of life arising is very small, although I get the idea that you believe that it is smaller than I do. I believe that the proportion of hospitable planets is quite small but due to the vastness of the universe, the actual number could be quite large. I expect that you disagree.

So, if I multiply a very small ratio with a large integer, I get a result that could be somewhere in the realm of being feasible. This result is in agreement with the concept that life arose naturally on Earth and may exist elsewhere, but is very uncommon.

If you multiply an even smaller ration with a somewhat small integer, you get a result that would be interpreted as life anywhere in the universe being quite improbable. This result supports the idea that life requires supernatural guidance to develop and that there is no life elsewhere.

Further, though I have not seen any calculations for the odds of life arising, I would surmise it to be incredibly low, if not zero.

Virtually all researchers agree that it is low. Since we can only speculate as to the mechanism, we can also only speculate as to the odds.

This creationist seems to be fudging his numbers to make his case, or does he not realize that under the current models of the origin of life, there was not sufficient free oxygen to support the current forms of life.

As for an early atmosphere with no oxygen, if there was water, oxygen would be generated by ultraviolet radiation hitting water molecules. So, the only way there would be no oxygen would be if there was also no water. Further, if there was no oxygen, there would be no ozone layer. With no ozone layer, the amount of UV radiation would be much greater, which would generate more oxygen from water. Unfiltered UV would also be damaging to any cells, even if they did happen to spontaneously arise.

Free oxygen. There was no free oxygen when life arose on Earth. Perhaps I misunderstood your creationist source. Hugh Ross places in his list of necessary requirements for life to exist, Oxygen quantity - .01 and Oxygen to nitrogen ratio - .1 . Perhaps I incorrectly assumed that he means that free oxygen is required for the development of life, which is untrue.

However he could mean that the odds of there being the correct quantity of oxygen, in whatever form, independent of the other criteria is 1 in 100 and that the odds of there being the correct oxygen to nitrogen ration, independent of the other criteria is 1 in ten. I would like to see how he may have come up with such ratios and the justification for calling them quite conservatives estimates, and the justification for treating each of these criteria as independent, (you can only validly multiply the probabilities of independent events. )

However, the point is not about how many parameters there are, even though creationists deceptively try to multiply them, but how to explain them.

I would not say that anyone is trying to deceptively multiply them. The discovery of fine-tuning parameters I would say is primarily from non-creationists.

Is that why you cite the list from the creationist, Hugh Ross?

The God hypotheses explains this improbable event by positing an even more improbable entity.

Please provide how you calculate the improbability of God.

You know that I cannot actually calculate that. But reason shows that the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe is less probable than the existence of the universe itself. The whole basis of the teleological argument is that things that exist require there to be a creator to explain their existence. The cause of such things must be more complex than the thing itself. The watchmaker is a more complex being than the watch. Thus the existence of your God is more difficult to explain than the existence of the universe he is said to have created.

I fail to see how emphasizing just how improbable the set of parameters is gets us any closer to determining an answer to how it occurred.

As the odds of something get diminishingly small and yet the event occurs, we commonly then attribute the cause to an intelligent source, not a random event.

Yes, that is a common fallacy. More on that later.

I'm only pointing out that we are privileged observers. If we are the only observers, I would mean we are unique and special observers.

If we are the only observers, it is not necessarily because we are privileged, it may be because it just happened that way.

Well, I'm not "claiming victory". But, given that there is no evidence for aliens and that there is evidence for the improbability of aliens, it more be more rational to take the position that aliens do not exist.

It would be, if the evidence for the improbability of life in the universe were valid.

[otseng]

Eight is many?

I'm only saying that there is more than one. Perhaps I should've used multiple instead of many.

Now, if we multiply the number of hospitable planets in the universe with the odds of life arising on a hospitable planet, we will get the expected number of inhabited planets. We both agree that the odds of life arising is very small, although I get the idea that you believe that it is smaller than I do.

We're saying practically the same things, just from a different angle.

What I'm saying is that the odds of life arising on a planet would be:
Odds of life arising * odds of having a hospitable planet * total number of planets

I believe that the proportion of hospitable planets is quite small but due to the vastness of the universe, the actual number could be quite large. I expect that you disagree.

Given that we do not know the total number of planets, it would be presumptuous to say that the number is quite large.

If you multiply an even smaller ration with a somewhat small integer, you get a result that would be interpreted as life anywhere in the universe being quite improbable. This result supports the idea that life requires supernatural guidance to develop and that there is no life elsewhere.

Correct.

Virtually all researchers agree that it is low. Since we can only speculate as to the mechanism, we can also only speculate as to the odds.

I think where there is no speculation it is that it is low. And as microbiologists study the cell, the odds continue to diminish of it arising by random chance.

Free oxygen. There was no free oxygen when life arose on Earth.

I was referring to free oxygen in the atmosphere.

I would like to see how he may have come up with such ratios and the justification for calling them quite conservatives estimates, and the justification for treating each of these criteria as independent, (you can only validly multiply the probabilities of independent events. )

Oxygen quantity - .01

This would mean that 1 in 100 planets would have the right quantity of oxygen. As for how he derived that value, I do not know. But, my hunch is that it would be far smaller than that.

Is that why you cite the list from the creationist, Hugh Ross?

I cite him because he is one of the authors that I read. But he was not the one who discovered the fine-tuning parameters. He only compiled them. Here is the some of the references for the list that he compiled:

1. John Leslie, editor, Physical Cosmology and Philosophy (New York: Macmillan, 1990), pp. 121-180.
2. Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?" Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.
3. Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, "Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.
4. Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, "Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing," Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.
5. P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, "A Supernova Brane Scan," Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.
6. P. deBernardis, et al, "Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.
7. A. T. Lee, et al, "A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.
8. R. Stompor, et al, "Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.
9. Andrew Watson, "Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up," Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.
10. Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, "Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Ly? Forest?" Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.
11. Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, "A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies," Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.
12. G. Efstathiou, et al, "Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.
13. Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, "Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, " Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.
14. Renyue Cen, "Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.
15. Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking-Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," a contribution to Stephen Hawkingís 60th birthday workshop on the Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge, UK, January, 2002, arXiv:gr-qc/0205010v1, May 2, 2002.
16. Joseph F. Hennawi and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, "Observational Constraints on the Self-Interacting Dark Matter Scenario and the Growth of Supermassive Black Holes," Astrophysical Journal, 572 (2002), pp. 41-54.
17. Robert Brandenberger, Brandon Carter, and Anne-Christine Davis, "Microwave Background Constraints on Decaying Defects," Physics Letters B, 534 (2002), pp. 1-7.
18. Lawrence M. Krauss, "The End of the Age Problem, and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited," Astrophysical Journal, 501 (1998), pp. 461-466.
19. Q. R. Ahmad, et al, "Measurement of the Rate of ?e + d ??? p + p + e- Interactions Produced by 8B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory," Physical Review Letters, 87 (2001), id. 071301.
20. R. E. Davies and R. H. Koch, "All the Observed Universe Has Contributed to Life," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 334B (1991), pp. 391-403.
21. George F. R. Ellis, "The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments," in The Anthropic Principle, edited by F. Bertola and U. Curi (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 30.
22. H. R. Marston, S. H. Allen, and S. L. Swaby, "Iron Metabolism in Copper-Deficient Rats," British Journal of Nutrition, 25 (1971), pp. 15-30.
23. K. W. J. Wahle and N. T. Davies, "Effect of Dietary Copper Deficiency in the Rat on Fatty Acid Composition of Adipose Tissue and Desaturase Activity of Liver Microsomes," British Journal of Nutrition, 34 (1975), pp. 105-112;.
24. Walter Mertz, "The Newer Essential Trace Elements, Chromium, Tin, Vanadium, Nickel, and Silicon," Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 33 (1974), pp. 307-313.
25. Bruno Leibundgut, "Cosmological Implications from Observations of Type Ia Supernovae," Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 39 (2001), pp. 67-98.
26. C. L. Bennett, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations, Preliminary Maps, and Basic Results," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 1-27.
27. G. Hinshaw, et al, ""First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Angular Power Spectrum," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 148 (2003), pp. 135-159.
28. A. Balbi, et al, "Probing Dark Energy with the Cosmic Microwave Background: Projected Constraints from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and Planck," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 588 (2003), pp. L5-L8.
29. A. Vikhlinin, et al, "Cosmological Constraints from the Evolution of the Cluster Baryon Mass Function at z = 0.5," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 15-25.
30. Frank Thim, et al, "The Cepheid Distance to NGC 5236 (M83) with the ESO Very Large Telescope," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 256-270.
31. Kazuhide Ichikawa and M. Kawasaki, "Constraining the Variation of the Coupling Constants with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis," Physical Review D, 65 (2002), id 123511.
32. Eubino-Martin José Alberto, et al, "First Results from the Very Small Array-IV. Cosmological Parameter Estimation," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 341 (2003), pp. 1084-1092.
33. Takuji Tsujimoto and Toshikazu Shigeyama, "Star Formation History of ? Centauri Imprinted in Elemental Abundance Patterns," Astrophysical Journal, 590 (2003), pp. 803-808.
34. Santi Cassissi, Maurizio Salaris, and Alan W. Irwin, "The Initial Helium Content of Galactic Globular Cluster Stars from the R-Parameter: Comparison with the Cosmic Microwave Background Constraint," Astrophysical Journal, 588 (2003), pp. 862-870.
35. Naoki Yoshida, et al, "Early Structure Formation and Reionization in a Warm Dark Matter Cosmology," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L1-L4.
36. Robert R. Caldwell, et al, "Early Quintessence in Light of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L75-L78.
37. V. Luridiana, et al, "The Effect of Collisional Enhancement of Balmer Lines on the Determination of the Primordial Helium Abundance," Astrophysical Journal, 592 (20030, pp. 846-865.
38. Y. Jack Ng, W. A. Christiansen, and H. van Dam, "Probing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?" Astrophysical Journal Letters, 591 (2003), pp. L87-L89.
39. J. L. Sievers, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Cosmic Background Imager Observations and Comparisons with BOOMERANG, DASI, and MAXIMA," Astrophysical Journal, 591 (2003), pp. 599-622.
40. R. Scranton, et al, "Physical Evidence for Dark Energy," submitted July 20, 2003 to Physical Review Letters, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0307335.
41. Pablo Fosalba, Enrique Gaztanaga, and Francisco Castander, "Detection of the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe and Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effects from the Cosmic Microwave Background-Galaxy Correlation." Astrophysical Journal Letters, 597 (2003), pp. L89-L92.
42. M. R. Nolta, et al, "First Year Wilkinson Anistropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Dark Energy Induced Correlation with Radio Sources," submitted May 7, 2003 to Astrophysical Journal, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0305097.
43. Stephen Boughn and Robert Crittenden, "A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-Scale Structure in the Universe," Nature, 427 (2004), pp. 45-47.
44. T. Jacobson, S. Liberati, and D. Mattingly, "A Strong Astrophysical Constraint on the Violation of Special Relativity by Quantum Gravity," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1019-1021.
45. Sean Carroll, "Quantum Gravity: An Astrophysical Constraint," Nature, 424 (2003), pp. 1007-1008.
46. D. J. Fixsen, "The Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy from the Combined COBE FIRAS and WMAP Observations," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 594 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
47. John L. Tonry, et al, "Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 594 (2003), pp. 1-24.
48. Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al, "Dodecahedral Space Topology as an Explanation for Weak-Angle Temperature Correlations in the Cosmic Microwave Background," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 593-595.
49. George F. R. Ellis, "The Shape of the Universe," Nature, 425 (2003), pp. 566-567.
50. Charles Seife, "Polyhedral Model Gives the Universe an Unexpected Twist," Science, 302 (2003), p. 209.
51. Neil J. Cornish, et al, "Constraining the Topology of the Universe," astro-ph/0310233, submitted to Physical Review Letters, 2003.
52. David Kirkman, et al, "The Cosmological Baryon Density from the Deuterium-to-Hydrogen Ratio in QSO Absorption Systems: D/H Toward Q1243+3047," Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 149 (2003), pp. 1-28.
53. Jeremiah P. Ostriker, et al, "The Probability Distribution Function of Light in the Universe: Results from Hydrodynamic Simulations," Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2003), pp. 1-8.
54. M. Tegmark, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from SDSS and WMAP," preprint, 2003 posted at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0310723.
55. Wolfram Freudling, Michael R. Corbin, and Kirk T. Korista, "Iron Emission in z ~ 6 QSOs," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 587 (2003), pp. L67-L70.
56. Lennox L. Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "The inconstant constant?" Nature 428 (2004), pp. 132-133.
57. H. Chand, et al., "Probing the cosmological variation of the fine-structure constant: Results based on VLT-UVES sample," Astronomy and Astrophysics, 417 (2004), pp. 853-871.
58. Thibault Damous and Freeman Dyson, "The Oklo bound on the time variation of the fine-structure constant revisited," Nuclear Physics B, 480 (1996), pp. 37-54.
59. Anton M. Koekemoer, et al, "A Possible New Population of Sources with Extreme X-Ray/Optical Ratios," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 600 (2004), pp. L123-L126.
60. Henry C. Ferguson, et al, "The Size Evolution of High-Redshift Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal, 600 (2004), pp. L107-L110.
61. Charles Seife, "Light from Most-Distant Supernovae Shows Dark Energy Stays the Course," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1271.
62. Jonathan C. Tan and Christopher F. McKee, "The Formation of the First Stars. I. Mass Infall Rates, Accretion Disk Structure, and Protostellar Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 603 (2004), pp. 383-400.
63. Charles Seife, "Galactic Stripling Gives a Glimpse of the Universe's Raw Youth," Science, 303 (2004), p. 1597.
64. Alan Heavens, et al, "The Star Formation History of the Universe from the Stellar Populations of Nearby Galaxies," Nature, 428 (2004), pp. 625-627.
65. Pavel D. Naselsky, et al, "Primordial Magnetic Field and Non-Gaussianity of the One-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 45-54.
66. Gang Chen, et al, "Looking for Cosmological Alfvén Waves in Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Data," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 655-659.
67. Tommaso Treu and Léon V. E. Koopmans, "Massive Dark Matter Halos and Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies to z = 1," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 739-760.
68. B. Aubert, et al (the BaBar Collaboration), "Observations of Direct CP Violation in B0® K+pi- Decays," preprint, August, 2004, high energy physics - experiment.
69. Mark Peplow, "The Bs Have It," Nature, 430 (2004), p. 739.
70. Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
71. A. C. S. Readhead, et al, "Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager," Science, 306 (2004), pp. 836-844.
72. Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
73. Amr A. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
74. J. R. Lin, S. N. Zhang, and T. P. Li, "Gamma-Ray Bursts Are Produced Predominantly in the Early Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 819-822.
75. Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
76. Naoki Yoshida, Volker Bromm, and Lars Hernquist,, "The Era of Massive Population III Stars: Cosmological Implications and Self-Termination," The Astrophysical Journal, 605, (2004), pp. 579-590.
77. YesheFenner, Jason X. Prochaska and Brad K. Gibson, "Constraints on Early Nucleosynthesis from the Abundance Pattern of a Damped Ly? System at z = 2.626," The Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 116-125.
78. Andreas Heithausen,, "Molecular Hydrogen as Baryonic Dark Matter," The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 606 (2004), pp. L13-L15.
79. Douglas Clowe, Anthony Gonzalez, and Maxim Markevitch, "Weak-Lensing Mass Reconstruction of the Interacting Cluster IE 0657-558: Direct Evidence for the Existence of Dark Matter," Astrophysical Journal, 604 (2004), pp. 596-603.
80. Sean T. Prigge, et al, "Dioxygen Binds End-On to Mononuclear Copper in a Precatalytic Enzyme Complex," Science, 304 (2004), pp. 864-867.
81. H. Jakubowski, Biochemistry: Chapter 8: Oxidative-Phosphorylation, A: The Chemistry of Dioxygen, November 17, 2005, http://employees.csbsju.edu/hjakubowski ... nchem.html. Accessed 02/06/06.
82. Robert H. Abeles, Perry A. Frey, and William P. Jencks, Biochemistry (Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 1992), pp. 655-673.
83. P. Caresia, S. Matarrese, and L. Moscardini, "Constraints on Extended Quintessence from High-Redshift Supernovae," Astrophysical Journal, 605 (2004), pp. 21-28.
84. AmrA. El-Zant, et al, "Flat-Cored Dark Matter in Cuspy Clusters of Galaxies," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L75-L78.
85. Kyu-Hyun Chae, et al, "Constraints on Scalar-Field Dark Energy from the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey Gravitational Lens Statistics," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 607 (2004), pp. L71-74.
86. Max Tegmark, et al, "The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies From the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 702-740.
87. Adrian C. Pope, et al, "Cosmological Parameters from Eigenmode Analysis of Sloan Digital Sky Survey Galaxy Redshifts," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 655-660.
88. YunWang and Pia Mukherjee, "Model-Independent Constraints on Dark Energy Density from Flux-Averaging Analysis of Type Ia Supernova Data," Astrophysical Journal, 606 (2004), pp. 654-663.
89. Adam G. Riess, et al, "Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution," Astrophysical Journal, 607 (2004), pp. 665-687.
90. A. Kashlinsky, et al, "Detecting Population III Stars Through Observations of Near-Infrared Cosmic Infrared Background Anisotropies," Astrophysical Journal, 608 (2004), pp. 1-9.
91. Nickolay Y. Gneidin, "Reionization, Sloan, and WMAP: Is the Picture Consistent?" Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 9-13.
92. Paul Martin and Luis C. Ho, "A Population of Massive Globular Clusters in NGC 5128," Astrophysical Journal, 610 (2004), pp. 233-246.
93. L. Pasquini, et al, "Beryllium in Turnoff Stars of NGC6397: Early Galaxy Spallation Cosmochronology and Cluster Formation," Astronomy and Astrophysics, in press, 2004.
94. Peter Bond, "Hubble's Long View," Astronomy & Geophysics, volume 45, issue 3, June 2004, p. 328.
95. T. Harko and K. S. Cheng, "Time Delay of Photons of Different Energies in Multidimensional Cosmological Models," Astrophysical Journal, 611 (2004), pp. 633-641.
96. I. H. Stairs, S. E. Thorsett, and Z. Arzoumanian, "Measurement of Gravitational Soin-Orbit Coupling in a Binary Pulsar System," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id. 141101.
97. Daniel B. Zucker, et al, "Andromeda IX. A New Dwarf Speroidal Satellite of M31," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 612 (2004), pp. L121-L124.
98. J. Patrick Henry, "X-Ray Temperatures for the Extended Medium-Sensitivity Survey High-Redshift Cluster Sample: Constraints on Cosmology and the Dark Energy Equation of State," Astrophysical Journal, 609 (2004), pp. 603-616.
99. S. W. Allen, et al, "Constraints on Dark Energy from Chandra Observations of the Largest Relaxed Galaxy Clusters," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 353 (2004), pp. 457-467.
100. Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "Direct Determination of the Kinematics of the Universe and Properties of the Dark Energy as Functions of Redshift," Astrophysical Journal, 612 (2004), pp. 652-659.
101. Ruth A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, "A Model-Independent Determination of the Expansion and Acceleration Rates of the Universe as a Function of Redshift and Constraints on Dark Energy," Astrophysical Journal 597 (2003), pp. 9-20.
102. E. Peik, et al, "Limit on the Present Temporal Variation of the Fine Structure Constant," Physical Review Letters, 93 (2004), id # 170801.
103. I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavils, "A Confirmation of the General Relativistic Prediction of the Lense-Thirring Effect," Nature, 431 (2004), pp. 958-960.
104. Timothy P. Ashenfelter and Grant J. Mathews, "The Fine-Structure Constant as a Probe of Chemical Evolution and Asymptotic Giant Branch Nucleosynthesis in Damped Lya Systems," Astrophysical Journal, 615 (2004), pp. 82-97.
105. Signe Riemer-Sorensen, Steen H. Hansen, and Kristian Pedersen, "Sterile Neutrinos in the Milky Way: Observational Constraints," Astrophysical Journal Letters, 644 (2006), pp. L33-L36.
106. D. G. Yamazaki, et al, "Constraints on the Evolution of the Pimordial Magnetic Field from the Small-Scale Cosmic Microwave Background Angular Anisotropy," Astrophysical Journal, 646 (2006), pp. 719-729.

http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe

You know that I cannot actually calculate that.

Just wanted to make sure that you couldn't. If you could, I would've been mightily impressed since I've never seen such a calculation.

But reason shows that the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe is less probable than the existence of the universe itself.

Probability is only valid when things occur by chance. Since my argument to support a deity does not involve chance, any use of probability does not apply.

The cause of such things must be more complex than the thing itself. The watchmaker is a more complex being than the watch.

But this does not demonstrate that the watchmaker does not exist or even to be highly improbable to exist.

Thus the existence of your God is more difficult to explain than the existence of the universe he is said to have created.

There is no need to explain the cause of God unless it has been first determined that God does exist.

If we are the only observers, it is not necessarily because we are privileged, it may be because it just happened that way.

Stating that we are the only observers because it happened that way would be a truism and have no explanatory value.

Also, as I've stated, if we are it, then it would undermine the mediocrity principle and the copernican principle.

[McCulloch]

The more planets there are, the greater the probability that there will be life.

We have many planets in our solar system, but only one is hospitable for life to possibly exist.

Eight is many?

I'm only saying that there is more than one. Perhaps I should've used multiple instead of many.

Yes, but it does take the strength out of your objection to use multiple rather than many. Why bring up the probability of life in our solar system at all? If the probability of life arising is, for argument's sake, one in one hundred thousand, then the fact that there is life or not in a sample size of eight is totally irrelevant and a pointless waste of time.

_______________________

What I'm saying is that the odds of life arising on a planet would be:
Odds of life arising * odds of having a hospitable planet * total number of planets

I believe that the proportion of hospitable planets is quite small but due to the vastness of the universe, the actual number could be quite large. I expect that you disagree.

Given that we do not know the total number of planets, it would be presumptuous to say that the number is quite large.

Not really.

There are billions of stars in our galaxy and a significant percentage of these stars are likely to have planets orbiting them.
[...]
As of January 2010, 429 extrasolar planets have been confirmed.
[...]
Most are giant planets thought to resemble Jupiter; however, substantial sampling bias exists since more massive planets are much easier to detect with current technology. A few relatively lightweight exoplanets, only a few times more massive than Earth, have now been detected and projections suggest that planets of roughly Earth-like mass will eventually be found to outnumber extrasolar gas giants.
[...]
It is estimated that at least 10% of sun-like stars have planets, and the true proportion may be much higher.

_______________________

And as microbiologists study the cell, the odds continue to diminish of it arising by random chance.

Why the strawman argument? No modern evolutionary biologist promotes the idea that living cells arose by random chance.

_______________________

Free oxygen. There was no free oxygen when life arose on Earth.

I was referring to free oxygen in the atmosphere.

The creationist source you quote, uses the probability of there being free oxygen in the atmosphere as being one of the fine tuning parameters. Yet, life arose on Earth in the absence of free oxygen. Oxygen is toxic to obligately anaerobic organisms, which were the dominant form of early life on Earth until O₂ began to accumulate in the atmosphere 2.5 billion years ago. It wasn't until O₂ levels rose that life forms that require oxygen could flourish and provide more the free oxygen using photosynthesis.

_______________________

Is that why you cite the list from the creationist, Hugh Ross?

I cite him because he is one of the authors that I read. But he was not the one who discovered the fine-tuning parameters. He only compiled them. Here is the some of the references for the list that he compiled:

Yet he cannot be trusted to interpret the data. He uses the statistically invalid method of multiplying probabilities without showing that they are independent and he included parameters, such as the level of free oxygen, which are irrelevant.

_______________________

There is no need to explain the cause of God unless it has been first determined that God does exist.

If you are positing that God exists, then you might be called upon to explain the cause of this god.

[otseng]

Why bring up the probability of life in our solar system at all? If the probability of life arising is, for argument's sake, one in one hundred thousand, then the fact that there is life or not in a sample size of eight is totally irrelevant and a pointless waste of time.

The point is that the probability of life also includes the odds of having a habitable planet. A planet would need to be within the circumstellar habitable zone to have any life. For example, the presence of liquid water is required for any life. And only within a certain range from the sun would water be able to exist in liquid form.

As of January 2010, 429 extrasolar planets have been confirmed.

Yes, we have on the order of hundreds of extrasolar planets discovered. But this is far from a number needed to overcome the odds of life arising.

Why the strawman argument? No modern evolutionary biologist promotes the idea that living cells arose by random chance.

I'm not saying that a cell spontaneously arose by the chance collision of all the right elements. Rather, biologists would envision a sequence of steps from elements to a living cell. But the fundamental mechanism for each step would be chance. And if it is not chance, then what other mechanism could be involved?

Yet, life arose on Earth in the absence of free oxygen. Oxygen is toxic to obligately anaerobic organisms, which were the dominant form of early life on Earth until O₂ began to accumulate in the atmosphere 2.5 billion years ago.

Yes, the presence of oxygen would prevent life from arising. But without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer to filter out UV radiation. And the presence of UV radiation would prevent life from arising. Also, as I've mentioned, the UV light hitting any water would generate free oxygen molecules. So, unless there was no water, oxygen would also be present. Further, the Miller–Urey experiment also generated oxygen. If the experiment is believed to explain the origin of amino acids and yet also produced oxygen, how can then one also say that there was no oxygen when life arose?

Yet he cannot be trusted to interpret the data. He uses the statistically invalid method of multiplying probabilities without showing that they are independent and he included parameters, such as the level of free oxygen, which are irrelevant.

You are free to present other probability calculations.

If you are positing that God exists, then you might be called upon to explain the cause of this god.

I do have an answer, but it is not part of the debate. The only issue is if God is real or not. If God is not real, then there is no need to explain the origin of God. Only when we establish that God is real then would the question be relevant.

[McCulloch]

Why bring up the probability of life in our solar system at all? If the probability of life arising is, for argument's sake, one in one hundred thousand, then the fact that there is life or not in a sample size of eight is totally irrelevant and a pointless waste of time.

The point is that the probability of life also includes the odds of having a habitable planet. A planet would need to be within the circumstellar habitable zone to have any life. For example, the presence of liquid water is required for any life. And only within a certain range from the sun would water be able to exist in liquid form.

So, how many Goldilocks zones might there be in the billions of known galaxies?

As of January 2010, 429 extrasolar planets have been confirmed.

Yes, we have on the order of hundreds of extrasolar planets discovered. But this is far from a number needed to overcome the odds of life arising.

Consider the scope of where we are able to detect Earth sized planets. They are really really hard to see, so we can only detect them in our immediate neighborhood. Assuming that the density of suitable planets is somewhat consistent, there aught to be millions in our galaxy and there are billions of galaxies.

I really wonder at what conclusion this line of debate will ever come to. You cannot prove that there is no possibility or even probability of life elsewhere and I cannot prove that life does exist elsewhere, due to the vast distances and the relatively small scale.

Why the strawman argument? No modern evolutionary biologist promotes the idea that living cells arose by random chance.

I'm not saying that a cell spontaneously arose by the chance collision of all the right elements. Rather, biologists would envision a sequence of steps from elements to a living cell. But the fundamental mechanism for each step would be chance. And if it is not chance, then what other mechanism could be involved?

Chance would be involved in the first formation of self-replicating molecules. Natural selection takes over from there.

Yet, life arose on Earth in the absence of free oxygen. Oxygen is toxic to obligately anaerobic organisms, which were the dominant form of early life on Earth until O₂ began to accumulate in the atmosphere 2.5 billion years ago.

Yes, the presence of oxygen would prevent life from arising. But without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer to filter out UV radiation. And the presence of UV radiation would prevent life from arising. Also, as I've mentioned, the UV light hitting any water would generate free oxygen molecules. So, unless there was no water, oxygen would also be present. Further, the Miller–Urey experiment also generated oxygen. If the experiment is believed to explain the origin of amino acids and yet also produced oxygen, how can then one also say that there was no oxygen when life arose?

Any stray O₂ in the early Earth's atmosphere would quickly combine with iron to form rust. There was a great deal of iron absorbed by the oceans waters until enough free O₂ was present to convert it to iron oxide(rust). This took 10s of millions of years. Only then could appreciable levels of atmospheric O₂ start to rise.

Actually, an ozone layer is irrelevant to anything more than an inch or two under the surface of the oceans. A possible source of the first life was the Black Smokers, which are many fathoms deep. These volcanic chimneys spew great deals of chemically laden water that even today harbor lifeforms found nowhere else on Earth. Neither any stray O₂, ultraviolet ray or cosmic ray can penetrate the thousands of feet of water. So, there, life could begin and flourish in the hot chemical soup (full of complex molecules and energy) of that environment without needing the protection of the ozone layer.

Yet he cannot be trusted to interpret the data. He uses the statistically invalid method of multiplying probabilities without showing that they are independent and he included parameters, such as the level of free oxygen, which are irrelevant.

You are free to present other probability calculations.

No, it is sufficient to show that the calculations you present are flawed.

Further, though I have not seen any calculations for the odds of life arising, I would surmise it to be incredibly low, if not zero.

Actually our experience here on Earth leads us to the conclusion that where life can exist, it does exist. Even in the most extreme environments, boiling hot springs, in frozen wastes and at the deepest depths that never see light.

[otseng]

So, how many Goldilocks zones might there be in the billions of known galaxies?

According to Brownlee and Ward, the odds of any other planet existing to support life would be quite rare. Their Rare Earth hypothesis lists requirements for a hospitable planet. One criteria is being in a "Goldilocks zone". Others include being a rocky planet, having necessary elements (carbon, oxygen, etc) for life, have a moon, have plate tectonics, a correct tilt, et al. They do not calculate a specific number for the odds of such a planet existing, but they state "it appears that Earth indeed may be extraordinary rare."

I really wonder at what conclusion this line of debate will ever come to. You cannot prove that there is no possibility or even probability of life elsewhere and I cannot prove that life does exist elsewhere, due to the vast distances and the relatively small scale.

I do not claim that I can prove that no other life exists. What I do claim is that it is more rational to take the position that no other life exists than believing that alien life exists. There is no evidence (unless one believes in UFOs and alien abductions) of any extraterrestrial life existing. And there is plenty of evidence to show that it would be quite rare for a planet to have all the conditions necessary for life.

This goes to my weather prediction analogy. It would be quite rare for a planet to be hospitable. Though there might be a finite chance that life can be found elsewhere, it would be very small. So, the more rational position to take is that extraterrestrial life does not exist, rather than that extraterrestrial life does exist.

Chance would be involved in the first formation of self-replicating molecules. Natural selection takes over from there.

Even natural selection relies on chance to select from (random mutations). So, in all steps, chance is required.

There was a great deal of iron absorbed by the oceans waters until enough free O₂ was present to convert it to iron oxide(rust). This took 10s of millions of years. Only then could appreciable levels of atmospheric O₂ start to rise.

It would then require a very high initial concentration of iron in the water. And if it took only tens of millions of years for the iron in the water to convert to iron oxide, how did it coincide with anaerobic life arising?

Actually, an ozone layer is irrelevant to anything more than an inch or two under the surface of the oceans. A possible source of the first life was the Black Smokers, which are many fathoms deep. These volcanic chimneys spew great deals of chemically laden water that even today harbor lifeforms found nowhere else on Earth. Neither any stray O₂, ultraviolet ray or cosmic ray can penetrate the thousands of feet of water.

This would imply that large oceans existed. This would greatly dilute any amino acids that happen to come about. Also , the temperature around black smokers reach 752^oF. And this temperature would destroy any free floating organic chains.

No, it is sufficient to show that the calculations you present are flawed.

The estimate is simply a ballpark guess. Even if you take out the odds of one or a few components, it doesn't show that the entire logic is flawed. The argument that life is rare is still valid. This is also supported by the Rare Earth hypothesis which I presented above.

What is required to refute this position is to somehow demonstrate that life is highly probable to exist.

Actually our experience here on Earth leads us to the conclusion that where life can exist, it does exist. Even in the most extreme environments, boiling hot springs, in frozen wastes and at the deepest depths that never see light.

It demonstrates that life is highly adaptable, but does not demonstrate that life can originate in extreme environments.

We have not really explored the multiverse proposal. Could you give your arguments supporting that as an explanation for fine-tuning?

[McCulloch]

They do not calculate a specific number for the odds of such a planet existing, but they state "it appears that Earth indeed may be extraordinary rare."

There is a huge difference between extraordinarily rare and unique. Extraordinarily rare would include, let's say, 1 in every million galaxies. But given that there are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 10¹¹) galaxies in the observable universe, that would still leave 1,700 such planets in the observable universe.

I really wonder at what conclusion this line of debate will ever come to. You cannot prove that there is no possibility or even probability of life elsewhere and I cannot prove that life does exist elsewhere, due to the vast distances and the relatively small scale.

I do not claim that I can prove that no other life exists. What I do claim is that it is more rational to take the position that no other life exists than believing that alien life exists. There is no evidence of any extraterrestrial life existing. And there is plenty of evidence to show that it would be quite rare for a planet to have all the conditions necessary for life.

I would still say that you would be jumping to conclusions. If there were some other civilization, as advanced as ours, in the next galaxy, would they be able to detect us? The lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence.

It would be quite rare for a planet to be hospitable. Though there might be a finite chance that life can be found elsewhere, it would be very small. So, the more rational position to take is that extraterrestrial life does not exist, rather than that extraterrestrial life does exist.

The odds of life in any particular spot is, I agree, rather small. However, we do know that life did occur at least once and we also know that the universe is vast.

Chance would be involved in the first formation of self-replicating molecules. Natural selection takes over from there.

Even natural selection relies on chance to select from (random mutations). So, in all steps, chance is required.

Chance is involved in Brownian motion. That does not mean that air flows cannot be predicted.

No, it is sufficient to show that the calculations you present are flawed.

The estimate is simply a ballpark guess.

No, it is not. It is an apparently deliberate manipulation of figures that misuse statistics to attempt to show that the probability is orders of magnitude smaller than it really is.

Even if you take out the odds of one or a few components, it doesn't show that the entire logic is flawed. The argument that life is rare is still valid. This is also supported by the Rare Earth hypothesis which I presented above.

Yes, life is rare. We agree. That does not mean, as you seem to be concluding, that life is impossible without supernatural help.

[otseng]

There is a huge difference between extraordinarily rare and unique. Extraordinarily rare would include, let's say, 1 in every million galaxies. But given that there are probably more than 170 billion (1.7 × 10¹¹) galaxies in the observable universe, that would still leave 1,700 such planets in the observable universe.

They do not give a value for what they mean by extraordinary rare, so it'd be difficult to know exactly what they mean. But, it could conceivably also include unique. However, what it definitely rules out is any high probability for extraterrestrial life.

I would still say that you would be jumping to conclusions.

I would say it's a small hop since there is no evidence for their existence and that the odds for their existence is extremely remote. It would be a far bigger leap to say that aliens do exist.

If there were some other civilization, as advanced as ours, in the next galaxy, would they be able to detect us?

If they are as advanced as ours and exist at the same time, I don't think we'd be able to detect each other.

But if any extraterrestrial posseses a warp dive, transporter, time machine, cryogenic spaceship, worm hole tunneler, etc, then it should be possible that we would run into them. But, we have no such contact.

This is summarized by the Fermi Paradox.

"The apparent size and age of the universe suggests that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it."

The lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence.

Suppose I had no evidence that X exists. And I argue that just because there is no evidence, that doesn't mean that X does not exist and that it could exist. Would that be a reasonable and persuasive argument?

Chance is involved in Brownian motion. That does not mean that air flows cannot be predicted.

I do not see the relevance.

My only point is that a fundamental mechanism of naturalistic processes is chance. This is contrasted to intentional processes where intelligence is a fundamental mechanism.

No, it is not. It is an apparently deliberate manipulation of figures that misuse statistics to attempt to show that the probability is orders of magnitude smaller than it really is.

The only factor you've brought up is the presence of oxygen (which is disputable). So even if you take out oxygen, that would only change by a factor of 0.01. The odds would still be extremely small at 10^-40.

That does not mean, as you seem to be concluding, that life is impossible without supernatural help.

Do you have any evidence that life can arise through naturalistic means?

[McCulloch]

It would be a far bigger leap to say that aliens do exist.

It is a good thing I don't make that claim.

If there were some other civilization, as advanced as ours, in the next galaxy, would they be able to detect us?

If they are as advanced as ours and exist at the same time, I don't think we'd be able to detect each other.

But if any extraterrestrial posseses a warp dive, transporter, time machine, cryogenic spaceship, worm hole tunneler, etc, then it should be possible that we would run into them. But, we have no such contact.

Those devices are all from fiction. As far as we know, they all violate the fundamental laws of physics. It is like saying that there are no advanced forms of life because none of them can do magic.

This is summarized by the Fermi Paradox.

"The apparent size and age of the universe suggests that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it."

There are a few answers to the Fermi paradox that I can think of:

1. Advanced forms of civilization are too far apart to be detected and faster than light transportation really is impossible.
2. We are the first advanced civilization. Hey, someone's gotta be first.
3. Civilizations, once they get advanced beyond a certain level, generally tend to self-destruct. We've come close. Perhaps we've only got a few dozen generations left before we leave the planet.
   • nuclear war
   • biological warfare or accidental contamination
   • nanotechnological catastrophe
   • ill-advised physics experiments
   • a badly programmed super-intelligence
   • Malthusian catastrophe
   • destruction of a planet's ecosphere
   • other.
4. We have not been searching long enough or carefully enough.

The lack of evidence is just that, lack of evidence.

Suppose I had no evidence that X exists. And I argue that just because there is no evidence, that doesn't mean that X does not exist and that it could exist. Would that be a reasonable and persuasive argument?

Of course not. But that would be a straw man argument. We have evidence that life came to be in the universe once. Is it reasonable to conclude that it only happened once, just because we don't see any of the others?

Chance is involved in Brownian motion. That does not mean that air flows cannot be predicted.

I do not see the relevance.

My only point is that a fundamental mechanism of naturalistic processes is chance. This is contrasted to intentional processes where intelligence is a fundamental mechanism.

And my point is that sometimes the aggregate of lots of random events appears to be an intentional process.

The only factor you've brought up is the presence of oxygen (which is disputable). So even if you take out oxygen, that would only change by a factor of 0.01. The odds would still be extremely small at 10^-40.

I only brought up one rather obvious factor. Your creationist source, argues that the availability of free oxygen is a factor required for the development of life. This is denied by the example of anaerobic life forms, thought by biologists to be the oldest forms of life. The other point I brought up that has been ignored, is that multiplying probabilities as he has done, is only valid if the events are statistically independent. This error would have an even greater effect on the result. I would prefer to use an analysis done by someone who can show that he is both capable and less biased.