Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

This thread started 2011 and originally went until 2013.

It was revived to show a civil discussion about not believing in God by people who do not believe in God.

For people interested in that, starting at the beginning of the thread is recommended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

Penrose who has described himself as an atheist, says he doesn't believe in any religious doctrines but says the nature of reality is more complex than many of his secular colleagues admit. He describes 'three great mysteries' in the realms of mathematics, consciousness and the physical world, that science has not yet explained. "Mystery number one is the fact that this world of physics is so extraordinarily precisely guided by mathematical equations. The precision is extraordinary... Mystery number two is how conscious experience can arise when these circumstances seem to be right. It's not just a matter of complicated computations; there's something much more subtle going on... Mystery number three is our ability to use our conscious understanding to comprehend mathematics and these very extraordinary selfconsistent but deep ideas, which are very far from my experiences."

For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with what you typed above. What would any of those “mysteries” indicate?


As a specific response, those are just variations on the fine tuning argument, and I refer you to Douglas Adam’s’ sentient puddle.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Why are imaginary talking puddles relevant? Do you know who Penrose is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

Penrose who has described himself as an atheist, says he doesn't believe in any religious doctrines but says the nature of reality is more complex than many of his secular colleagues admit. He describes 'three great mysteries' in the realms of mathematics, consciousness and the physical world, that science has not yet explained. "Mystery number one is the fact that this world of physics is so extraordinarily precisely guided by mathematical equations. The precision is extraordinary... Mystery number two is how conscious experience can arise when these circumstances seem to be right. It's not just a matter of complicated computations; there's something much more subtle going on... Mystery number three is our ability to use our conscious understanding to comprehend mathematics and these very extraordinary selfconsistent but deep ideas, which are very far from my experiences."

For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with what you typed above. What would any of those “mysteries” indicate?


As a specific response, those are just variations on the fine tuning argument, and I refer you to Douglas Adam’s’ sentient puddle.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Why are imaginary talking puddles relevant? Do you know who Penrose is?

Do you understand the metaphor of the sentient puddle? From Douglas Adams of "Hitchhiker's Guide" fame?

Do you understand that you are simply making the "fine tuning" argument?

I bet you understand both of those things, because I am sure you are intelligent, and they are not complex concepts. You know all of this. You are not the first person to quote Penrose when making the fine tuning argument, and I am not the first one to point out the flaws when doing so.

You also don't respond to the specific flaws of Penrose's argument that I pointed out in the prior post?

I'll re-post the specifics to make it easier:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

Penrose who has described himself as an atheist, says he doesn't believe in any religious doctrines but says the nature of reality is more complex than many of his secular colleagues admit. He describes 'three great mysteries' in the realms of mathematics, consciousness and the physical world, that science has not yet explained. "Mystery number one is the fact that this world of physics is so extraordinarily precisely guided by mathematical equations. The precision is extraordinary... Mystery number two is how conscious experience can arise when these circumstances seem to be right. It's not just a matter of complicated computations; there's something much more subtle going on... Mystery number three is our ability to use our conscious understanding to comprehend mathematics and these very extraordinary selfconsistent but deep ideas, which are very far from my experiences."

For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with what you typed above. What would any of those “mysteries” indicate?


As a specific response, those are just variations on the fine tuning argument, and I refer you to Douglas Adam’s’ sentient puddle.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Why are imaginary talking puddles relevant? Do you know who Penrose is?

Do you understand the metaphor of the sentient puddle? From Douglas Adams of "Hitchhiker's Guide" fame?

Do you understand that you are simply making the "fine tuning" argument?

I bet you understand both of those things, because I am sure you are intelligent, and they are not complex concepts. You know all of this. You are not the first person to quote Penrose when making the fine tuning argument, and I am not the first one to point out the flaws when doing so.

You also don't respond to the specific flaws of Penrose's argument that I pointed out in the prior post?

I'll re-post the specifics to make it easier:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

I asked you to show me a refutation of Penrose. You said someone could refute him.

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS HonFInstP (born 8 August 1931) is a British mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, an emeritus fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and an honorary fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, and University College London.

Known for
List of contributions
Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse
Twistor theory
Spin network
Abstract index notation
Black hole bomb
Geometry of spacetime
Cosmic censorship
Illumination problem
Weyl curvature hypothesis
Penrose inequalities
Penrose interpretation of quantum mechanics
Diósi–Penrose model
Newman–Penrose formalism
GHP formalism
Penrose diagram
Penrose inequality
Penrose process
Penrose tiling
Penrose triangle
Penrose stairs
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems
Penrose graphical notation
Penrose transform
Penrose–Terrell effect
pp-wave spacetime
Schrödinger–Newton equations
Orch-OR/Penrose–Lucas argument
FELIX experiment
Trapped surface
Andromeda paradox
Conformal cyclic cosmology

Awards
List of awards
Adams Prize (1966)
Heineman Prize (1971)
Fellow of the Royal Society (1972)
Eddington Medal (1975)
Royal Medal (1985)
Wolf Prize (1988)
Dirac Medal (1989)
Albert Einstein Medal (1990)
Naylor Prize and Lectureship (1991)
Knight Bachelor (1994)
James Scott Prize Lectureship (1997–2000)
Karl Schwarzschild Medal (2000)
De Morgan Medal (2004)
Dalton Medal (2005)
Copley Medal (2008)
Fonseca Prize (2011)
Nobel Prize in Physics (2020)

Penrose has contributed to the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize in Physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, and one half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".

Douglas Adams is great and all, but who has refuted Penrose on this subject specifically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
God is not an unfalsifiable claim;

Yes, it is. Here's the proof: think of something you are pretty sure does not exist, and then prove it does not exist.

God is not something that science does not have tools to find or measure.

Yes, it is. See the example above.

Science is an amazing, wonderful undertaking: it teaches us about life, the world and the universe. But it has not revealed to us why the universe came into existence nor what preceded its birth.

It also has not revealed if there is a "why", or if the universe "came into existence" or if anything "preceded its birth". Those are pre-suppositions you are claiming, also without evidence.

Biological evolution has not brought us the slightest understanding of how the first living organisms emerged from inanimate matter on this planet and how the advanced eukaryotic cells—the highly structured building blocks of advanced life forms—ever emerged from simpler organisms.

This is completely false.

https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582#:~:text=The%20Miller%2DUrey%20experiment%20was,the%20theoretical%20ideas%20of%20A.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

I could post hundreds of these...

Neither does it explain one of the greatest mysteries of science: how did consciousness arise in living things? Where do symbolic thinking and self-awareness come from? What is it that allows humans to understand the mysteries of biology, physics, mathematics, engineering and medicine? And what enables us to create great works of art, music, architecture and literature? Science is nowhere near to explaining these deep mysteries.

So since you can't figure those things out, you just say "god musta done it"! That might be good enough for you, and certainly fits religions' need for confirmation bias, but it is not an explanation with more evidence (scientific or otherwise) than any creation myth.

The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123. This is a number as close to zero as anyone has ever imagined. (The probability is much, much smaller than that of winning the Mega Millions jackpot for more days than the universe has been in existence.)

Coupl'a things to point out here.

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

Penrose who has described himself as an atheist, says he doesn't believe in any religious doctrines but says the nature of reality is more complex than many of his secular colleagues admit. He describes 'three great mysteries' in the realms of mathematics, consciousness and the physical world, that science has not yet explained. "Mystery number one is the fact that this world of physics is so extraordinarily precisely guided by mathematical equations. The precision is extraordinary... Mystery number two is how conscious experience can arise when these circumstances seem to be right. It's not just a matter of complicated computations; there's something much more subtle going on... Mystery number three is our ability to use our conscious understanding to comprehend mathematics and these very extraordinary selfconsistent but deep ideas, which are very far from my experiences."

For the sake of discussion, let’s say I agree with what you typed above. What would any of those “mysteries” indicate?


As a specific response, those are just variations on the fine tuning argument, and I refer you to Douglas Adam’s’ sentient puddle.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

Why are imaginary talking puddles relevant? Do you know who Penrose is?

Do you understand the metaphor of the sentient puddle? From Douglas Adams of "Hitchhiker's Guide" fame?

Do you understand that you are simply making the "fine tuning" argument?

I bet you understand both of those things, because I am sure you are intelligent, and they are not complex concepts. You know all of this. You are not the first person to quote Penrose when making the fine tuning argument, and I am not the first one to point out the flaws when doing so.

You also don't respond to the specific flaws of Penrose's argument that I pointed out in the prior post?

I'll re-post the specifics to make it easier:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

I asked you to show me a refutation of Penrose. You said someone could refute him.

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS HonFInstP (born 8 August 1931) is a British mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, an emeritus fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and an honorary fellow of St John's College, Cambridge, and University College London.

Known for
List of contributions
Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse
Twistor theory
Spin network
Abstract index notation
Black hole bomb
Geometry of spacetime
Cosmic censorship
Illumination problem
Weyl curvature hypothesis
Penrose inequalities
Penrose interpretation of quantum mechanics
Diósi–Penrose model
Newman–Penrose formalism
GHP formalism
Penrose diagram
Penrose inequality
Penrose process
Penrose tiling
Penrose triangle
Penrose stairs
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems
Penrose graphical notation
Penrose transform
Penrose–Terrell effect
pp-wave spacetime
Schrödinger–Newton equations
Orch-OR/Penrose–Lucas argument
FELIX experiment
Trapped surface
Andromeda paradox
Conformal cyclic cosmology

Awards
List of awards
Adams Prize (1966)
Heineman Prize (1971)
Fellow of the Royal Society (1972)
Eddington Medal (1975)
Royal Medal (1985)
Wolf Prize (1988)
Dirac Medal (1989)
Albert Einstein Medal (1990)
Naylor Prize and Lectureship (1991)
Knight Bachelor (1994)
James Scott Prize Lectureship (1997–2000)
Karl Schwarzschild Medal (2000)
De Morgan Medal (2004)
Dalton Medal (2005)
Copley Medal (2008)
Fonseca Prize (2011)
Nobel Prize in Physics (2020)

Penrose has contributed to the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize in Physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, and one half of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity".

Douglas Adams is great and all, but who has refuted Penrose on this subject specifically?

I posted the refutation. Twice! You even quoted it.

You have also used another logical fallacy, this time the “Argument from Authority “ fallacy.

[Anonymous]

He is an authority, that’s why I posted his bio. How is he wrong? You can’t just say he’s wrong. You can’t call everything a fallacy.

[Anonymous]

OMG shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG shut up.

Sounds like a respectful atheist, no doubt. Very respectful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is an authority, that’s why I posted his bio. How is he wrong? You can’t just say he’s wrong. You can’t call everything a fallacy.

How is he wrong? For the THIRD TIME:

- You can't calculate the odds of a thing that there is one of. There is only one universe. A second mathematician can easily retort that since the universe exists, and there is only one, the odds of it existing exactly as it does is 100%. Fun game!

- Even your flawed example calculates the odds as greater than zero, which would mean in a nearly infinite universe, the chance of life forming somewhere is also nearly 100%. As I said, fun game!

And I will stop calling out your fallacies when you stop committing them.

[Anonymous]

10^10^123 – 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power – aka “the Penrose Number.”

The Penrose Number is named after Roger Penrose. Penrose is:

An English mathematical physicist, mathematician, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, an emeritus fellow of Wadham College, Oxford and an honorary fellow of St John’s College, Cambridge, and of University College London (UCL).

Penrose was awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize for Physics, in early October 2020.

Penrose was a close friend of Stephen Hawking, the famous English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and author who was director of research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge at the time of his death in 2018.

Exactly as with Hawking, Penrose was deeply interested in the origins of the universe, and moves in circles that included the likes of Hawking and others like him.

The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it says the universe as we know it started with a small singularity, then inflated over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today.

Per the Big Bang Theory, the universe came into existence as a result of a set of very specific, precise conditions and occurrences.

One of those conditions was something called “initial entropy.”

Entropy is the degree of “thermodynamic disorder” in a closed system like the universe.

Penrose wondered about these questions:

– What “initial entropy” conditions had to have existed in order for the universe to have been created in accordance with the Big Bang Theory, and for that universe to then ultimately be supportive of life coming into existence randomly?

– What are the odds that those exact conditions could have existed at the time of the Big Bang?

The Penrose Number is his scientifically-based-and-calculated estimate of those odds.

According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10123 to 1, or 10^10^123, aka, the Penrose Number.

In Penrose’s book The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers Minds, and the Laws of Physics, Penrose wrote this (emphasis added):

One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary (decimal) notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe – and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure – we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.

The phenomenon to which the Penrose Number applies (initial entropy conditions) is just one of many instances/conditions/X factors that had to happen EXACTLY as they did in order for the universe to have come into existence, and for that universe to be ultimately supportive of life.

Here are two additional quick examples of other such X factors:

Explosive power of Big Bang precisely matched to power of gravity; density precisely matched with critical density

Resonance precision required for existence of carbon, a necessary element for life.

Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds inherent in the formation of carbon.

What he discovered was so shocking – because the odds against that specific process working the way it had to work in order to form carbon were so extreme – that it made him question his personal spiritual orientation.

Glibly saying “fun game” and repeating “but another math guy could refute this and nobody can calculate things because there’s only one universe” is not sufficient to send the penrose number packing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Glibly saying “fun game” and repeating “but another math guy could refute this and nobody can calculate things because there’s only one universe” is not sufficient to send the penrose number packing.

Actually it is. No matter how many times you keep posting it. I also showed you that Penrose's own calculation indicated the chance of life forming somewhere in the universe is 100%, but you ignore it. I will keep (respectfully, as requested) pointing that out so maybe you should stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glibly saying “fun game” and repeating “but another math guy could refute this and nobody can calculate things because there’s only one universe” is not sufficient to send the penrose number packing.

Actually it is. No matter how many times you keep posting it. I also showed you that Penrose's own calculation indicated the chance of life forming somewhere in the universe is 100%, but you ignore it. I will keep (respectfully, as requested) pointing that out so maybe you should stop.

Except there’s no life in the universe that we know of besides us.

If the odds are 100% of life developing in the universe, why are we the only life? 100% means life throughout the universe, everywhere.

Penrose calculations don’t show what you are claiming at all; quite the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glibly saying “fun game” and repeating “but another math guy could refute this and nobody can calculate things because there’s only one universe” is not sufficient to send the penrose number packing.

Actually it is. No matter how many times you keep posting it. I also showed you that Penrose's own calculation indicated the chance of life forming somewhere in the universe is 100%, but you ignore it. I will keep (respectfully, as requested) pointing that out so maybe you should stop.

Except there’s no life in the universe that we know of besides us.

If the odds are 100% of life developing in the universe, why are we the only life? 100% means life throughout the universe, everywhere.

Penrose calculations don’t show what you are claiming at all; quite the opposite.

Except there’s no life in the universe that we know of besides us.

Correct. That we know of. But even Penrose's flawed calculation, if accepted, proves that it will likely exist in certain places, because it is not zero. You understand that /=0 means that yes, life will likely exist somewhere.

If the odds are 100% of life developing in the universe, why are we the only life?

We don't know we are the only life anywhere, and the fact that life exists here is consistent with the finding that it is 100% sure life will develop somewhere. Because it did.

100% means life throughout the universe, everywhere.

Not sure where you are getting that, because it means nothing of the sort. Are you forgetting the variable of a nearly infinite universe?

A roulette wheel, with one spin, can come up with any number, even though the odds are heavily against any one. With a nearly infinite number of spins, any particular number is likely to come up many, many times. (nearly an infinite number of times, actually).

Take Penrose's calculation. Say the universe is exactly as large as he calculates the odds. Then life is likely to be in at least one place. Now assume it is 1000X larger - life is likely to be in 1,000 places.

You are talking about odds. This is how odds work.

[Anonymous]

The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God.

There is as close to zero as possible odds life exists anywhere in the universe, including us.

We can’t find evidence of life anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God.

There is as close to zero as possible odds life exists anywhere in the universe, including us.

We can’t find evidence of life anywhere else.

? Then you can call almost anything "God." When I think of this subject I think of Yaweh, Allah Jesus, all the Hindu gods etc. Your definition is basically just existence itself. It disappears into almost meaninglessness.