Fine tuning, a new approach

[lesliedellow]

Ok, then can I have a source for this?

http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning

You can find the one part in 10^15 figure a few paragraphs down. It relates to the density of the universe, rather than G, but still the effect is the same.

The figure for the cosmological constant is no less than one part in 10^120.

 

[KCfromNC]

Both.

Then why did you claim they were for two different things? Were you not being straightforward then or now?

 

[KCfromNC]

There is no evidence that the Laws of Physics are eternal

Same problem with your god. That's why it being fine tuned needs to be explained by a bigger, badder god. I mentioned the IPU earlier in the thread as an obvious answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem faced in reality is how did the Laws of Physics originate, nothing creates itself.

Except for gods, of course, because reasons.

 

[Oncedeceived]

oh, in that case:
There is no evidence that God is eternal, nothing was known of God's characteristics until we discovered Him. They were not given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered either.

In my argument, God revealed His own characteristics and one was His eternal nature. We didn't discover His nature or characteristics they were revealed to us. He has always been. The Laws of Physics are products of the mind and can only be known with a mind. I agree that the Laws of Physics were "thought" of before the universe as they were the mental vision of God's creation of the universe.

 

[[serious]]

http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning

You can find the one part in 10^15 figure a few paragraphs down. It relates to the density of the universe, rather than G, but still the effect is the same.

The figure for the cosmological constant is no less than one part in 10^120.

Doesn't show any work and I don't see a citation for anywhere that shows work. A citation needs to be more than someone else of no particular significance making a similar claim.

 

[[serious]]

In my argument, God revealed His own characteristics and one was His eternal nature. We didn't discover His nature or characteristics they were revealed to us. He has always been. The Laws of Physics are products of the mind and can only be known with a mind. I agree that the Laws of Physics were "thought" of before the universe as they were the mental vision of God's creation of the universe.

Did things not fall down before we knew about gravity?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Same problem with your god. That's why it being fine tuned needs to be explained by a bigger, badder god. I mentioned the IPU earlier in the thread as an obvious answer.

Which is simply inaccurate. There is no need for something bigger than a Supreme Being that is necessary to the physical rules and laws the universe is governed by. Only physical and material elements need be caused, God made the rules that apply to the natural world the natural world does not dictate God's existence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Except for gods, of course, because reasons.

God wasn't created at all. That is the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did things not fall down before we knew about gravity?

Gravity = Laws of Physics.

 

[[serious]]

http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning

You can find the one part in 10^15 figure a few paragraphs down. It relates to the density of the universe, rather than G, but still the effect is the same.

The figure for the cosmological constant is no less than one part in 10^120.

Taking a closer look, the 10^15 there isn't even for the gravitational constant. It's for the critical density.

 

[lesliedellow]

Doesn't show any work and I don't see a citation for anywhere that shows work. A citation needs to be more than someone else of no particular significance making a similar claim.

At the end of that article there is a list of articles and books by other physicists. If their names mean anything to you, you will know that "someone of no particular significance" is not a particularly accurate appellation for them.

You could also take yourself off to the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, and watch some of their videos.

It is one thing not wanting to be tarred with the creationist brush, which I suspect is your problem, but cosmological fine tuning unsettles atheist physicists in a way that atheist biologists are not unsettled by creationist attempts to discredit evolution.

 

[[serious]]

Gravity = Laws of Physics.

Ok, you lost me. Let's back up:

You said, "The Laws of Physics are products of the mind" now you're saying gravity is a product of the mind? How does that work exactly? It sounds like a roadrunner cartoon where the coyote doesn't fall until he looks down.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, you lost me. Let's back up:

You said, "The Laws of Physics are products of the mind" now you're saying gravity is a product of the mind? How does that work exactly? It sounds like a roadrunner cartoon where the coyote doesn't fall until he looks down.

Are you trying to claim that gravity is a physical thing?

 

[[serious]]

At the end of that article there is a list of articles and books by other physicists. If their names mean anything to you, you will know that "someone of no particular significance" is not a particularly accurate appellation for them.

You could also take yourself off to the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, and watch some of their videos.

It is one thing not wanting to be tarred with the creationist brush, which I suspect is your problem, but cosmological fine tuning unsettles atheist physicists in a way that atheist biologists are not unsettled by creationist attempts to discredit evolution.

They have citations for some things, but none on gravitation. There is a general "further reading" section, but none of the titles seem to have anything to do with the gravitational constant.

As far as the "someone of no particular significance" bit, you didn't direct me to a paper by any of the scientists mentaioned in the article. You directed me to the article. The article makes an unsourced claim. The author, whoever it is, does not even have a by line.

 

[[serious]]

Are you trying to claim that gravity is a physical thing?

Huh? like sitting on a desk?

What are you talking about?

Let me ask this way, if a tree falls in the forest and there are no "minds" around to produce gravity, does it actually fall?

If the answer is yes, gravity works just fine even if we aren't there to observe and record it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Huh? like sitting on a desk?

What are you talking about?

Let me ask this way, if a tree falls in the forest and there are no "minds" around to produce gravity, does it actually fall?

If the answer is yes, gravity works just fine even if we aren't there to observe and record it.

I don't know what you are getting at. Gravity is part of the Laws of Physics. It is how something behaves in the universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

The author, whoever it is, does not even have a by line.

I would hazard a guess that the author is Karl Giberson.

 

[[serious]]

I don't know what you are getting at. Gravity is part of the Laws of Physics. It is how something behaves in the universe.

Right, whether or not someone is there to observe it.

So what were you getting at with "The Laws of Physics are products of the mind"?

The laws of physics operate just fine regardless of whether we know about them or not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, whether or not someone is there to observe it.

So what were you getting at with "The Laws of Physics are products of the mind"?

The laws of physics operate just fine regardless of whether we know about them or not.

Yes, exactly. They exist whether we are here or not, but being here we discover them with our minds. We can't "see" gravity. We observe what gravity does, we can't "see" the speed of light but can discover it not by sight but by the mind.