A finely tuned universe that points to a God.
- Thread starter Usus Vox Tractus
- Start date
1. Because we would see Universes colliding
2.Yes Lottery Machines are machines therefor someone tuned them, you haven't see a lottery machine to have a will, didn't you?
3. The machine would need to be fine tuned to create Universes and not kitties.
4. Machine is just a word to describe the process for a Universe to exist and since we talk about Multiverses then there is something that created multiple universes and strictly universes just like a ball factory creates only balls.
I mean imagine the possibility of a Boeing 747 aircraft being completely assembled as a result of a tornado striking a junkyard.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
More than two dozen parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.
strong nuclear force constant
If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
Weak nuclear force constant
If larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
If smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars
Gravitational force constant
If larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly
If smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy element production
Electromagnetic force constant
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be too unstable for fission
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
If larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses hence short stellar life spans and uneven stellar luminosities
If smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production
Ratio of electron to proton mass
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
Ratio of numbers of protons to electrons
If larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
If smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
Expansion rate of the universe
If larger: no galaxy formation
If smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
Entropy level of the universe
If smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
If larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
Mass density of the universe
If larger: too much deuterium from big bang hence stars burn too rapidly
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming
Velocity of light
If faster: stars would be too luminous
If slower: stars would not be luminous enough
Age of the universe
If older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy
If younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
Initial uniformity of radiation
If smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
If coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
If larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses
If smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation over an adequate time span
if smaller: the sun¹s orbit would be too radically disturbed
average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible
mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life¹s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up
supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets
white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
ratio of exotic to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form
Upvote
0
Yes i see the problem..
Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am not sure you understand probability. That somebody wins the lottery is not unlikely at all. It is, indeed, necessary.That a specific person wins the lottery is more or less unlikely, it depends on how many tickets were sold.That a complex functional proteins emerges by random search or random walk is so unlikely that it cannot practically happen in our universe (too many tickets sold, one for each possible protein sequence of a certain length).So, a complex functional protein will never win the lottery, in our limited universe. I can’t see how the anthropic selection can help you there. Unless you recur to the multiverse scenario, which is simple folly, because thousands of different complex proteins have indeed won the lottery on our planet, and that cannot be explained by probability.
1) A lottery is held. One billion tickets are sold. One ticket is extracted as winner. We assume the lottery is fair (therefore, probabilities are computed according to an uniform distribution).
1.1) Probability that there is a winner (any winner) = 1 (necessity).
1.2) Probability that one specific person, buying just one ticket, wins the lottery = 10^-9.
okay?
Now, a new scenario:
2) Five consecutive lotteries are held, each of them selling one billion tickets. Again, we assume the lotteries are fair.
2.1) Probability that the same person (any person) wins all five lotteries (assuming that the same persons buy one ticket per lottery) = 10^-36
2.2) Probability that one specific person wins all five lotteries (assuming that that person buys one ticket per lottery) = 10^-45
In the 2) scenario using the binomial distribution, we can compute the following probabilities that the same specific person, buying one ticket per lottery, wins:
One lottery = 5 * 10^-9
Two lotteries = 1 * 10^-17
Three lotteries = 1 * 10^-26
Four lotteries = 5 * 10^-36
Five lotteries = 1 * 10^-45
As you can see, probabilities change a lot according to how one defines the event whose probability is being computed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It appears that you don't understand the probabilities. For the Powerball lottery, the chances that a specific person will win is 1 in 150 million which is very unlikely, at least in my book.
A random walk of RNA molecules did result in functional RNA enzymes capable of filling the function of proteins.
20 In Vitro Selection of Functional RNA Sequences | Szostak | Cold Spring Harbor Monograph Archive
In the case of this discussion, we are only aware of one winner, and not how many tickets were sold. That is the point being made.
The probability of the same person winning 5 in a row is the same as 5 different, but specific, people winning. That is the problem with the fine tuning argument, they are doing the calculations afterwards. They are painting the bull's eye around the bullet hole.
What are the chances that our universe would emerge with the costants it has? 1 in 1. Why? Because it happened.
Upvote
0
I love how you give an invisible multiverse the benefit of the doubt, sight unseen, but not God.
Upvote
0
I love how you give an invisible multiverse the benefit of the doubt, sight unseen, but not God.
I also give God the benefit of the doubt. I have never proclaimed that God does not exist, nor do any of my arguments rest on God not existing.
Upvote
0
I see you're still straddling that razor's edge and holding a lack of belief and disbelief in all things that you cannot observe, except of course as it relates to astronomy.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
I love how you give an invisible multiverse the benefit of the doubt, sight unseen, but not God.
I understand.
With that said, we have to keep in mind, we do know universes do exist, because we can observe one right now. We can't say the same for a God. Doesn't mean a God doesn't exist, it just means the evidence is there that at least one of these things does exist and we know it.
I agree with you that at present, the evidence leans towards one universe, but certainly more could exist, just like a God could exist.
Upvote
0
By definition we know that *one* universe exists.
Sure, but one and only one. Apparently the mainstream only "sees" about 5 percent of that one thing too.
Who's we?
I can certainly "see" the God that I believe in. In fact I see more of him than the mainstream professes to actually "observe" of their one, mostly dark universe. Ya, but even from my perspective, I still have no evidence that more than one of them exists.
That's why I'm a "monotheist" by the way. I was really just focused on the "leaning" aspect, but at this point we're just whipping a dead horse.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,733
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Sure, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster could also exist... for real!
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
I see you're still straddling that razor's edge and holding a lack of belief and disbelief in all things that you cannot observe, except of course as it relates to astronomy.
And another attempt to expound on your obsessions.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
And I have been saying this over and over and over with the math to support it.
The Infinite Eternal God (all space taken up by matter) issues a holographic wave front as a self expression. "Solid space" is then cavitated into relative vacuum bubbles/universes/images of God. You cannot make an image of infinite solid space, it has no edge to define form.
God is infinite therefore the metaverse contains infinite universes.
God is One therefor each universe is the same waveform expression of that One.
It's really not that difficult.
Upvote
0
Think on this: If our universe began as a single sphere in an infinite sphere stack of all equal sized spheres, then there would be rapid space-time inflation until the spheres limit each other, then much slower plateau expansion of intra-universal space-time membranes.
Which is exactly what modern science has concluded based on evidence. They just don't know why/how and they never will because outside the universe will never be observable to machines and evidence based science. They will forever be in the dark using only that method.
All you actually need is sound logic and a little bit of math. The evidence we can collect lines up, down and sideways to a contractile model of a substantial Infinite that issues a holographic waveform of itself. That is why there is apparent "fine tuning" and everything works together. It's an unfolded wholoarchy like the rainbow from white light, not an explosion of Legos and "oh hey look, fortunate us!"
Which is exactly what modern science has concluded based on evidence. They just don't know why/how and they never will because outside the universe will never be observable to machines and evidence based science. They will forever be in the dark using only that method.
All you actually need is sound logic and a little bit of math. The evidence we can collect lines up, down and sideways to a contractile model of a substantial Infinite that issues a holographic waveform of itself. That is why there is apparent "fine tuning" and everything works together. It's an unfolded wholoarchy like the rainbow from white light, not an explosion of Legos and "oh hey look, fortunate us!"
Upvote
0
Well....thanks!
So is current dark energy and dark matter estimates by cutting edge science not admissible? What about the Standard Model and modern understanding of particle generation which finds 3 stable atomic density levels, excluding 4rth and higher densities with a surety of Sigma 5.3?
Is any of that considerable? I can tell you exactly why there are only 3 density levels of matter and antimatter and why we are made of the lightest type of matter charge orientation. I can fully and and unequivocally account for appearent matter/anti-matter asymmetry.
I have arrived at modern sciences DE expansive constant to within .3% with my means and it fully explains the rapid early inflation of the universe and later slow plateau we enjoy today.
But because I don't have a framed piece of paper on my wall that lets you know you can appeal to my authority, then my soundly logical and extremely accurately predictive model is inconsiderable? Hah!
Do you know why a "childlike" (read beginners Zen mind) is so important? Because it can consider a thing on it's own merits without interference from both self preconceived notions but most importantly, beyond the paradigms the world has authorized for your consumption and repetition.
Scientific theories and paradigms are not necessarily "dis-proven", they are replaced by simpler, more elegant models that more accurately account for universal phenomenon. Like the one I am sharing with you.
Which hilariously enough is a very old and well known idea throughout ancient science, ancient religion and ancient philosophy. It's only the now old materialist "science" paradigm that keeps trying to pull something out of nothing or compress everything into a single finite point and failing miserably. Because the fundamental "big bang" premiss is incorrect.
"The beginning is the must important part of the work." Plato.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You are leaving out the fact the other side of the lottery is not random. The chances of the one who running the lottery of winning is 100%. A lottery is more like Deal A poker hand (stacked deck) than Deal B poker hand (random draw).
Some atheist have trouble recognizing that lotteries are intelligent designed.
As Jones pointed out it has more to do with "purpose" than just the odds.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
