There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that God exists

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
PaulPores's picture
There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that God exists

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.

[post modified to remove several lines of plagiarized copyright material by mod. Go here for full text.]

[Roger Penrose:]

“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

[Lennox:]

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros."

[Penrose:]“number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
plagiarized (and I don't mean
fruyian's picture
That argument seems to be,
PaulPores's picture
> That argument seems to be,
Nyarlathotep's picture
Paul Pores - Take for example
Tin-Man's picture
@PP Re: That entire jumbled
fruyian's picture
Apologies for the tardiness.
Sheldon's picture
Wow, that was brutal, true of
arakish's picture
Christian Apologetics
PaulPores's picture
Still not a rebuttal. I
arakish's picture
Paul Pores: Besides what is
arakish's picture
Paul Pores: Still not a
Sheldon's picture
"Besides what is wrong with
Nyarlathotep's picture
Basically Penrose is fixing
Nyarlathotep's picture
For anyone who didn't fall
Mutorc S'yriah's picture
Let us suppose that we accept
LostLocke's picture
Another issue here.
Terminal Dogma's picture
So someone has a theory, that
PaulPores's picture
Did you not read the title...
Nyarlathotep's picture
Terminal Dogma - Also the bit
Terminal Dogma's picture
All just a bunch of imagining
Nyarlathotep's picture
Guess I wasted my time.
Terminal Dogma's picture
History has shown that
Nyarlathotep's picture
Terminal Dogma - History has
Nyarlathotep's picture
I've been trying to think of
Sapporo's picture
"God" does not qualify as a
Cognostic's picture
Paul Pores: "the theory that
Dave Matson's picture
It appears that this is
Sheldon's picture
I'm an uneducated duffer when
Sushisnake's picture
@PP

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
David Killens's picture
Instead rambling off some

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.