Richard Dawkin's is hard to disagree with sometimes.

[DogOnPorch]

What would you rather put at the centre?

The Universe has no centre.

[cybercoma]

I'm still waiting for Shady to explain his position.

If I may offer some advice... don't hold your breath while you wait.

[Smallc]

If I may offer some advice... don't hold your breath while you wait.

[dre]

That still doesn't explain how it actually began.

Yeah but neither does any religious theory. They all start after god already exists, and dont talk about the universe he was created in or who his creator was.

Seems pretty clear to me that at least the very first life form had to have been created by the universe itself, because there could have been no designer.

[Bonam]

Our information is constantly changing. Although yes, there are probably millions or even billions of planets, new evidence indicates that the elements and conditions necessary to support a biosphere are probably quite rare. Life might even be a "fluke", an anomaly.

I am skeptical. They said the same thing about planets forming in solar systems, until we started discovering them. My opinion is that the universe, including our galaxy, are very likely teaming with life.

In any case, even if life is the rarest of flukes, we now have good reason to believe that a substantial fraction of solar systems have planets, and many have multiple planets. That's not "millions or billions" of planets, that's sextillions (10^21 or thousands of billions of billions) of planets in the observable universe (according to our best estimates of the number of stars in the universe). Given that we have proof that in a not particularly extraordinary solar system in a run of the mill galaxy, life can happen, well... a sextillion chances is a lot, even for something very rare.

Personally my guess is that there are at the minimum millions of planets with life on them in just our own galaxy.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest Manny]

The Universe has no centre.

Physical centre no. The question was more about an ideological or philosophical one. That's what I mean when I say "Man should be the centre of all things".

If you say there is no centre, isn't that like moral relativism? I'm sure you don't want to be a relativist, that way. So you have to make a choice.

[Guest Manny]

Yeah but neither does any religious theory. They all start after god already exists, and dont talk about the universe he was created in or who his creator was.

Seems pretty clear to me that at least the very first life form had to have been created by the universe itself, because there could have been no designer.

Scientists say the same thing about the big bang. What was there before the big bang, in which the universe was created? Nothing. No space in 3 dimensions. Not even time. There was no "before" the big bang. Cause and effect is a human perception, but scientists say the dimension of time, or "space-time" has finite boundaries. They explain the creation of the universe in one theory stating that perhaps a multi-dimensional object (11 dimensions) collapsed down to the current 3 + time. It's just a theory, postulated by mathematics. String theory implies it. String theory is only a mathematical model, which is untestable. But it fills in the blanks.

Am I talking about science, or religion? Can't tell right now. For the vast majority of us lay-persons, acceptance of any of these ideas as valid descriptions of reality requires a certain amount of faith.

[Guest Manny]

I am skeptical. They said the same thing about planets forming in solar systems, until we started discovering them. My opinion is that the universe, including our galaxy, are very likely teaming with life.

In any case, even if life is the rarest of flukes, we now have good reason to believe that a substantial fraction of solar systems have planets, and many have multiple planets. That's not "millions or billions" of planets, that's sextillions (10^21 or thousands of billions of billions) of planets in the observable universe (according to our best estimates of the number of stars in the universe). Given that we have proof that in a not particularly extraordinary solar system in a run of the mill galaxy, life can happen, well... a sextillion chances is a lot, even for something very rare.

Personally my guess is that there are at the minimum millions of planets with life on them in just our own galaxy.

So when I demonstrate real, cutting edge current science you prefer to stick to your personal beliefs. I'm not criticizing you, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Just pointing it out.

[DogOnPorch]

Physical centre no. The question was more about an ideological or philosophical one. That's what I mean when I say "Man should be the centre of all things".

If you say there is no centre, isn't that like moral relativism? I'm sure you don't want to be a relativist, that way. So you have to make a choice.

Ummm...no I do not. You're the one putting us on a pedestal. I'll stick to Sagan and Hawking, thanks. Science first. Feelings second.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ummm...no I do not. You're the one putting us on a pedestal. I'll stick to Sagan and Hawking, thanks. Science first. Feelings second.

Agreed...we are not the centre. Our greatest interstellar contribution may be Three Stooges movie shorts.

[DogOnPorch]

Agreed...we are not the centre. Our greatest interstellar contribution may be Three Stooges movie shorts.

Indeed. Luckily, it would be decades until they'd be subjected to Jodi Foster movies.

Edited March 1, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Manny]

Ummm...no I do not. You're the one putting us on a pedestal. I'll stick to Sagan and Hawking, thanks. Science first. Feelings second.

I'm sure we both strongly believe in science, that is not the point being made here. Science is something we try to understand as "pure" and perfected, like mathematics. Pure science is without moral judgement. But in relation to the thread topic, the question is what do we use as a moral compass. Science does not provide that. Some people put God there, at the centre of all things which is the centre I was talking about. In other words their belief in god gives them a moral compass, to guide them in society. Social sciences, not physics. My answer is human beings. what is good for humans, is best. But if you intend to say, because the universe has no centre, therefore "nothing", you still have made a choice.

[bleeding heart]

I prefer Hitchens. He's much less about name calling, and much more about explaining in detail, his beliefs and positions. Dawkins gets more pub though, because he's kind of the shock jock of athiesm. Much less substantive though, in my opinion.

I'm not sure that's true. I always enjoyed reading Hitchens (in that masochistic way one keeps probing a sore tooth with the tongue), and his big brain was seriously impressive, but he was nothing if not vicious.

[Bonam]

So when I demonstrate real, cutting edge current science you prefer to stick to your personal beliefs. I'm not criticizing you, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Just pointing it out.

What's so cutting edge about the article you posted? Its one unremarkable study by one group of researchers. There are plenty of other equally speculative studies that come to the opposite conclusion. As for me, as a scientist, I'm entitled to my own opinion, based on my own understanding of the relevant science.