Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Black Holes

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 22, 2002 15:42:29 UTC

Isn't Lee Smolin's cosmological speculation a little circular? You need blackholes to have a finely tuned universe, but you need a finely tuned universe to have blackholes. Of course, you don't need quite as fine-tuned of a universe, but in order to have GR don't you need a quantum field that is capable of producing GR fields? I've read a lot of other problems more technical in nature.

***But it is not a sufficient condition to claim that a god or gods do not exist. I think the Celestine Prophecy type of coincidence is a better argument for the existence of god than the anthropic principle.***

I'm not familiar with the Celestine Prophecy. What is the main argument the author wishes to make? As for anthropic principle, my point is that we should simply face up to the evidence that rules out WAP and other types of responses to these coincidences. This is the beginning of a discussion and does not necessarily establish the existence of God.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins