Probability of life.

[Bluenose]

Listen to the roo-loving* upside-down man in the stolen royal hat.

Evolution is a process, not a miracle.

*...In soup, not in Biblical sense. Or... Wait, it's Puds. Does he even appreciate roo soup? What if he doesn't even like roos? would that automatically invalidate the wisdom of suing proper definitions? Somehow, it feels like it must.

There be philosophy to be done, and The Asmo shall be done doin' it.

Point is, if it can be explained a tenth as well as evolution, then it has loooong since ceased to be a miracle - except with far more Os.

As the alternate roo-loving upside-down man, albeit sans stolen royal hat, I must say that I, for one, actually do like roos and even roo soup.  In fact, I have even made roo soup, roo tail soup to be precise.  It was delicious!

Returning you now to normal service...

[Asmodean]

Yes, you see, Nose over yonder, he's the proper upside-down gentleman. He hath partaken of the great roo and approved of it.

[zorkan]

A bit of wild speculation, but most science is either speculation or plagiarism.
The universe is the biggest mystery and how and why it was created and why it is fine tuned for life is what keeps philosophers and scientists awake during the night.

Suppose it was created in another dimension by artificial intelligence for the purpose of making a mirror universe to hold its universe together.

Not a new idea I know, but any software has bugs to begin, and we might expect even AI to have some.
The resulting chaos eventually forms molecules which makes life possible given enough time.

The planet we live on is in a goldilock's zone where life started about 4 billion years ago.
It is believed that Homo sapiens nearly died out at one point with a population of only a few thousand.
So the Catholic idea about evolution being guided by god has to be bullshit.

Then our world is nothing more than a biological and geological junk yard.
Based on an idea by Peter Atkins in On Being.

[Asmodean]

but most science is either speculation or plagiarism.

What?!

I demand receipts or a proper scope of "most."

The universe is the biggest mystery and how and why it was created and why it is fine tuned for life is what keeps philosophers and scientists awake during the night.

Is the universe fine-tuned for life (As in, it was tuned with the end-goal being a hostile-as-hell environment with an occasional dust mote upon which life may find purchase) or does life exist in it merely because the conditions on at least one such mote among bajillions are such that it might?

May completely different life exist under completely different conditions?

My point is; I see your philosophical mysteries and raise you my own.

Suppose it was created in another dimension by artificial intelligence for the purpose of making a mirror universe to hold its universe together.

Not a new idea I know, but any software has bugs to begin, and we might expect even AI to have some.
The resulting chaos eventually forms molecules which makes life possible given enough time.

Nah. Assumes a controlled system. How would you justify that assumption?

The planet we live on is in a goldilock's zone where life started about 4 billion years ago.
It is believed that Homo sapiens nearly died out at one point with a population of only a few thousand.
So the Catholic idea about evolution being guided by god has to be bullshit.

Then our world is nothing more than a biological and geological junk yard.
Based on an idea by Peter Atkins in On Being.

"Biological junk yard" is... A layman's guide to creating misunderstanding. What do you mean by "junk," for instance?

Yes, Earth is in the habitable zone, but let us not forget that the orbits of two other planets and one large moon are also within that same zone. Where are the Venutians? The answer in its simplest form is that within certain limits, the "right" distance from the star for what we call life depends on a multitude of factors besides actual distance. Atmospheric composition, thickness and chemistry, shape and stability of orbit, and a "living" magnetic core and plate tectonics to name but a few. I'm not sure about Venus, but it's been theorised that before its core solidified enough, Mars had a denser atmosphere, a water cycle and a warmer climate. Could Mars too have spawned life? (Low Nitrogen content would speak against it, still it's interesting to speculate)

[zorkan]

It is quite possible some sort of intelligence had a hand in the universe.
What caused the very brief period of inflation which it is theorised triggered the universe.
Did it just happen on its own?
Is the universe all there is and all there ever has been?
Does it have purpose and meaning, or none?
I don't even know what the universe is, or its shape, or whether it's finite or infinite.
Best answer I know its purpose is to transition muons into electrons, and we are along for the ride to help with entropy.

If it does have an artificial design then the religious are worshipping a machine.

I think Atkins knows a thing or two.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-scientists-exploration-questions-existence/dp/0199660549
Just one of his books.

[Asmodean]

It is quite possible some sort of intelligence had a hand in the universe.

I may tenuously agree with you on this if you drop the word "quite."

What caused the very brief period of inflation which it is theorised triggered the universe.

We don't know, but then there is nothing pointing towards it being anything we would consider intelligent.

I'm familiar with the hypothesis which describes the expansion of space (Consider space as the sum of the fields necessary for energy/matter) driven by some sort of repelling force, which decreased in magnitude with distance (not too unlike how gravity or volume of sound does) thereby slowing the expansion.

Is it accurate, especially in my layman interpretation? Probably not. Is it a more adequate world model than "aliens did it?" Absolutely.

Is the universe all there is and all there ever has been?

There might be a multiverse. However, for all we are likely to know based on the current models of reality, to us, the answer may as well be "yes," much by the same token as "Is Milkomeda all there is" could be thusly answered by a hypothetical civilization living at a time when the nearest galaxy from their own is speeding away from them at or above above the speed of light.

Does it have purpose and meaning, or none?

That is, quite simply, up to you. I may or may not share in your assignment of meaning and purpose, but that is neither here nor there. For instance, you may think that the purpose of a hammer is to drive nails. I may think that its purpose is to cave in helmets on a medieval battlefield. The dude who made the hammer may think that it's for hammering iron at the forge. A philosopher may think it's for all or none of the above. Doesn't matter.

In my opinion, If you use it for something, it has a purpose. You are using the universe for something.

I don't even know what the universe is, or its shape, or whether it's finite or infinite.
Best answer I know its purpose is to transition muons into electrons, and we are along for the ride to help with entropy.

Assuming that something other than space is outside space, is the outward shape of space even a valid parameter?

That said, I'll disagree with you there. Particle physics is not the puirpose, but a property of the universe, much like "heavy" is the property of a hammer, while driving nails or splitting skulls is the purpose to which said property is applied by the user.

As for entropy, if we have the right of it, it increases because statistically or on a large enough scale, it must. It's "simply" a matter of there being infinitely more disordered states of matter and energy than there are ordered ones. If anything, we resist it for a few decades by adding energy to the system in order to reorder the disorderly.

If it does have an artificial design then the religious are worshipping a machine.

A bit of a stretch, unless using a very specific definition of "machine."

[zorkan]

We don't know, but then there is nothing pointing towards it being anything we would consider intelligent.

Where Dawkins gets it hopelessly wrong is when he says god must be even more complex than his creation.
Stephen Wolfram would contradict this idea. Seth Lloyd might also.

A bit of a stretch, unless using a very specific definition of "machine."

A computational machine could work off binary leading to ever greater complexity.

I doubt if a spirit in the sky would work off binary but a type of computer could.

[Asmodean]

Where Dawkins gets it hopelessly wrong is when he says god must be even more complex than his creation.
Stephen Wolfram would contradict this idea. Seth Lloyd might also.

I have two issues with this. One is that to the best of my knowledge, what prof. Dawkins proposed is that a god would add a level of complexity to the equation that would require explaining. It would.

The other issue is, "well, so what?" I did not make an argument for the professor, nor did I attribute it to him. Your counter-argument does not use Dawkins' body of work to address mine - what does it have to do with him then?

A computational machine could work off binary leading to ever greater complexity.

I doubt if a spirit in the sky would work off binary but a type of computer could.

An analogue computer like your brain, or a digital one like your iPhone? What are the causes of its existence? Or, asked another way, what are the reasons it must exist in a compelling model of reality?

[zorkan]

A compelling argument for the non-existence of god has to be that he would have to have control over all the particles in the universe.

Another would surely be why does order produce chaos.

[Asmodean]

A compelling argument for non-existence of god is that a god is not necessary to model a functioning universe. (As in, why assume an irrelevant god?)

"Order" "producing" "chaos" is a dreadful way of addressing entropy, but if you must, it does so because in a dynamic system, there are infinitely more disordered states than there are ordered ones. I'll give you an example; how many combinations of eight button presses on your PC keyboard result in exactly one valid eight-letter word? Now, how many combinations result in something else?

Without added energy, a closed system will eventually decay as its individual components change state. You can think of it, in a way, like the abovementioned eight-letter words gradually incurring spelling errors that compound over time.

Pantheon
pantheon
Panthoen
Pantohen
aPntohen
aPnthoen
Spnohten
,snothEn

Entropy. It's reversible - even auto-reversible at times, but in the long run, the house always wins by virtue of sample sizes and statistics, rather than "beating" every individual player's every hand.

The second law of thermodynamics, as presented by The Asmo, ladies and gentlemen. If any physicists reading this feel like yelling loudly at Him, please do - He will appreciate any correction or clarification.

[zorkan]

If it makes you happier I'll revise order produces chaos to ask why god should want to destroy hos own creation by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the supreme law of the universe.
A destroyer god would make more sense than a creator god.

[Asmodean]

That is indeed a valid question. If indeed the Universe is on its merry way to heat death, and it already being as hostile a place to us squishy, heat-and-water-loving things as it is, how could one reconcile it with the idea of a good or a just creator? for that matter, how would one go about reconciling that with an intelligent creator?

I suppose the answer is them good old "mysterious ways." A non-answer, if you think about it, but a popular enough one.

[zorkan]

Remember that god drowned every man, woman and child in the flood, apart from Noah and his family and a breeding pair of  all land animals.
So he had a bit form. Maybe he didn't like his wider creation, but that was going to take longer to destroy.
God does indeed work in mysterious ways, and there are only things that god knows.
To that I'd argue god is a not perfect, then.

[Asmodean]

Ah, yes, the flood! There "was" a lot of incest on and around that boat.

[zorkan]

There is no such thing as a natural miracle. A miracle is by definition supernatural. It's use in a natural context is misuse of the word.

Re-reading the opening chapter of The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being: Evolution and the Making of Us by Prof. Alice Roberts, I found where I had read the term natural miracle.
Apart from being a famous biologist and anthropologist she is also the former president of the British Humanists.