A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[JimFit]

I don't think that someone who tunes cars or musical instruments agrees with your definition.

He tune cars because he has intention and he does that with his non physical Mind.

Your question is invalid because it implies falsehoods and assumes them as valid premises.

It's like me asking you "why do you hit your wife since the purple sky is made out of cheese?".

Its not, please answer it.

If you say so. I guess I'm not a materialist then.

Then how you are an atheist???

 

[JimFit]

You said that atheists believe in a past eternal chain of cause and effect.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe that.
Causality is a phenomena of the universe. The past chain of cause and effect has the same age as the universe. With our current knowledge of cosmology, the universe seems to be 13.7 billion years old.

That's not "past eternal".

There are atheists that move the cause way before, they say that quantum fluctuations can "cause" a Universe, my reply goes beyond the beginning of the Universe.

1. what does that mean?
2. how do you know?

1/2 How can someone be a God when He has to be created?

 

[JimFit]

Lottery.

Lottery is a Deterministic paradigm.

 

[JimFit]

Why can't you back your claims? You are claiming that God created stuff. Where is your evidence?

The evidence for a Creator is his Creation, if the Hubble Constant was different there would be no Creation right now and that shows intention because there wasn't anything physical before the Universe to account this Fine Tuned Creation to Physical Necessity.

Funny how you want everyone else to present evidence, but you refuse to present any yourself.

I think i proved intention, you must prove me wrong that intention doesn't exist and we are cosmic mistakes.

Where is your evidence that God has created anything?

God is not a person, God is Everything, you are asking me to point to a person who i will name him God, its not like that. First of all by definition i can't show you something non physical directly but indirectly, etc time, can i show you time by pointing to a clock? It doesn't work that way.

We don't know how universes are created,

Big bang Theory

how many there are,

There is one, prove the opposite.

nor the chances that a universe like ours will appear.

Chance?

​

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds, of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!

​

So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.

All you are doing is inserting God into the gaps in our knowledge. That is an argument from ignorance.

Are the Criminologists insert criminal of the gaps in their investigation?
ITS NOT GOD DID IT, ITS I KNOW THEREFOR GOD.
You are the one that inserting chance, chance doesn't exist its fairy dust, you can't insert something that doesn't exist as a counter argument, i can insert intention because intention exists,i have intention i know what it feels like to have intention and i know that i am conscious.

I haven't filled the Physical Universe with a God, you did it with chance because chance applies only on Materialism so your God is the Eternal Universe of the 17th century with different appearance.

God created the Universe, the rest are physics. God is the prime mover, the Mind that we own our Minds, just like in the case of a murder Science doesn't have access to his mind to prevent the crime, this is the most difficult problem after the Uncertainty Principle that Reductionism faces.

Yet more science you don't understand.

I understand very well

Read the last paragraph on page 3. It specifically states that the result shows that inflation must be finite in the past, and there must be space-time boundary.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

All you did was use an argument from ignorance.

I think it can be shown that the probability of a universe capable of supporting ANY form of complex life is one out of infinity (or in comprehensible terms: exactly zero). This sounds like a grandiose claim, but it seems to me to be obvious, once you consider any fine tuned constant. Consider, for example, the fine tuning of gravity. The fine tuning of it is 1 part in 10^40. That is +/- 1 part away from that value would be life prohibiting (at least for any complex life). Though it should be enough to reasonably infer design. That is only looking at how sensitive that value is to change. It doesn’t really address what that value could have been. That is, when you also consider what the range of possible values could have been outside of the life permitting range, then you are looking at the probability that the value you have would even be what it is. There could be possibly be an infinite number of possible values for the gravitational constant.
For example, suppose the gravitational constant was increased +1. The fine-tuning argument would suggest gravity would be so great, that the universe would collapse in on itself before life had any chance to evolve (insomuch as any macro-evolution can occur in the first place). Ok. We added +1 to what the gravitational constant could have been. What if it was +2. Then we don’t need to do the math to know that it would be even more life prohibitive. How about +3? Still no life. Why stop there….How about +4? +5? …..etc… to.+infinity? The same goes in the opposite direction. -1 and the universe can’t form heavy elements, and stars would not form (insomuch as stars could form from a big bang in the first place). If you go -2 from fine tuning, you obviously don’t help the prospects, you logically hurt the prospects of any form of life. This would go all the way that possible range will go (probably to 0). But you still have an infinite number of possibilities.
So, I’d content, if it can be shown that the range of possibilities could be infinite, then it necessarily means that our universe is infinitely fine tuned.
And that’s just looking at one fine tuned constant.
One might attempt to counter act the problem, but let’s be honest. ANY possible way one might think of to increase the range can be met with an infinite number of ways to break it. Breaking is easy…fixing, is not.
Design is the only rational conclusion.

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence for a Creator is his Creation, if the Hubble Constant was different there would be no Creation right now and that shows intention because there wasn't anything physical before the Universe to account this Fine Tuned Creation to Physical Necessity.





I think i proved intention, you must prove me wrong that intention doesn't exist and we are cosmic mistakes.



God is not a person, God is Everything, you are asking me to point to a person who i will name him God, its not like that. First of all by definition i can't show you something non physical directly but indirectly, etc time, can i show you time by pointing to a clock? It doesn't work that way.




Big bang Theory



There is one, prove the opposite.

Chance?

​

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds, of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!

​

So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.



Are the Criminologists insert criminal of the gaps in their investigation?
ITS NOT GOD DID IT, ITS I KNOW THEREFOR GOD.
You are the one that inserting chance, chance doesn't exist its fairy dust, you can't insert something that doesn't exist as a counter argument, i can insert intention because intention exists,i have intention i know what it feels like to have intention and i know that i am conscious.

I haven't filled the Physical Universe with a God, you did it with chance because chance applies only on Materialism so your God is the Eternal Universe of the 17th century with different appearance.

God created the Universe, the rest are physics. God is the prime mover, the Mind that we own our Minds, just like in the case of a murder Science doesn't have access to his mind to prevent the crime, this is the most difficult problem after the Uncertainty Principle that Reductionism faces.



I understand very well

Read the last paragraph on page 3. It specifically states that the result shows that inflation must be finite in the past, and there must be space-time boundary.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf




I think it can be shown that the probability of a universe capable of supporting ANY form of complex life is one out of infinity (or in comprehensible terms: exactly zero). This sounds like a grandiose claim, but it seems to me to be obvious, once you consider any fine tuned constant. Consider, for example, the fine tuning of gravity. The fine tuning of it is 1 part in 10^40. That is +/- 1 part away from that value would be life prohibiting (at least for any complex life). Though it should be enough to reasonably infer design. That is only looking at how sensitive that value is to change. It doesn’t really address what that value could have been. That is, when you also consider what the range of possible values could have been outside of the life permitting range, then you are looking at the probability that the value you have would even be what it is. There could be possibly be an infinite number of possible values for the gravitational constant.
For example, suppose the gravitational constant was increased +1. The fine-tuning argument would suggest gravity would be so great, that the universe would collapse in on itself before life had any chance to evolve (insomuch as any macro-evolution can occur in the first place). Ok. We added +1 to what the gravitational constant could have been. What if it was +2. Then we don’t need to do the math to know that it would be even more life prohibitive. How about +3? Still no life. Why stop there….How about +4? +5? …..etc… to.+infinity? The same goes in the opposite direction. -1 and the universe can’t form heavy elements, and stars would not form (insomuch as stars could form from a big bang in the first place). If you go -2 from fine tuning, you obviously don’t help the prospects, you logically hurt the prospects of any form of life. This would go all the way that possible range will go (probably to 0). But you still have an infinite number of possibilities.
So, I’d content, if it can be shown that the range of possibilities could be infinite, then it necessarily means that our universe is infinitely fine tuned.
And that’s just looking at one fine tuned constant.
One might attempt to counter act the problem, but let’s be honest. ANY possible way one might think of to increase the range can be met with an infinite number of ways to break it. Breaking is easy…fixing, is not.
Design is the only rational conclusion.

Jim,

You seem to be a little lite on evidence to support your claims. No problem believing what you choose though on faith alone.

 

[JimFit]

Show us evidence that God has created anything.

Creation = Creator

Something conscious can only create, Physical necessity and chance can't create without something physical already existing.

You are begging the question by putting your conclusion in the premises.

Please prove me that chance EVEN EXISTS so you can use it as a counter argument.

We don't know if there is necessity or not. All you are doing is arguing for a God of the Gaps.

Physical Necessity in a Finite Physical Universe? LOL

Where is the evidence that the universe could not be created by natural processes?

The Universe is Finite therefor Natural processes are Finite.

Also, I have just shown that objects without intention can build.

If something proves intention that is the constants, i mean can you find something more stable than the constants in the whole Universe? Lol

And yet they can create, contrary to your claims.

They don't have Free Will to "create", they obey blindly.

The decay of isotopes.

It has been proven that the Sun affects them.

You are painting the bullseye around the arrow. You have never shown that life was the intended outcome. You are just assuming it.

Life needs the whole Universe to exist, the whole Universe couldn't exist if the Hubble Constant was different.

You still can't understand how analogies are used. Why is that?

In your case Chance only works in Physical lotteries, the Universe is Finite therefor the Lottery must draw from something non physical.

Lottery Numbers = Physical Numbers

Something non physical isn't included to the lottery its something different.

We are still waiting for you to honestly address the evidence.

It doesn't matter to you how much evidence i will provide, you will continue to believe in delusional chance.

 

[HitchSlap]

It doesn't matter to you how much evidence i will provide, you will continue to believe in delusional chance.

Au contraire, it's evidence we value most!

 

[Mainframes]

You haven't provided any evidence in any shape or form. All you do is drone on about the requirement for a creator therefore a creator exists or that for the constants to be right for life requiring some conscious input. Rubbish.

There is nothing whatsoever stopping the universal constants having arisen naturally. We don't even know if it is possible for them to be different. It may be that is the only way the universe can exist.

You want there to be a creator to fit in your belief system and will shoehorn anything into that paradigm in order to maintain you belief despite any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creation = Creator [/quote

As already shown, non-intelligent and natural processes create things all of the time.

Please prove me that chance EVEN EXISTS so you can use it as a counter argument.

I don't have to counter arguments that have no evidence to support them.

They don't have Free Will to "create", they obey blindly.

And yet they still create.

It has been proven that the Sun affects them.

No, it hasn't. All that has been observed is that there is an increase in counts at certain times of the year. They still haven't shown that this is due to real decays or due to measurement error. It is much like the "faster than light neutrinos" a while back. Those turned out to be instrument error.

Life needs the whole Universe to exist, the whole Universe couldn't exist if the Hubble Constant was different.

That's completely false. Nothing about life on Earth requires the existence of the Andromeda galaxy. God could have created just our solar system, and life would kick along just fine.

In your case Chance only works in Physical lotteries, the Universe is Finite therefor the Lottery must draw from something non physical.

You are blabbering.

It doesn't matter to you how much evidence i will provide, you will continue to believe in delusional chance.

What evidence have you presented for God creating anything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Prove me that the Universe popped out of Nothingness assembled itself through Randomness and we are here by luck.

Why should I?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The evidence for a Creator is his Creation, if the Hubble Constant was different there would be no Creation right now and that shows intention because there wasn't anything physical before the Universe to account this Fine Tuned Creation to Physical Necessity.

Can you show that the universe has been "created," or are you assuming this point?

I think i proved intention, you must prove me wrong that intention doesn't exist and we are cosmic mistakes.

I don't think you have argued for intention very well.

God is not a person, God is Everything, you are asking me to point to a person who i will name him God, its not like that. First of all by definition i can't show you something non physical directly but indirectly, etc time, can i show you time by pointing to a clock? It doesn't work that way.

Defining God as "everything" becomes somewhat problematic when considering the premises of the kalam argument. I'm not sure what you mean by God being "everything." Do you worship everything?

Big bang Theory

The Big Bang theory gets us part of the way there, but not the whole way.

There is one, prove the opposite.

This is just a bare assertion. Perhaps there is only one, perhaps there are two, or perhaps there are infinitely many. We don't know whether our universe is special or unique.

Chance?

​

From where did you copy-and-paste this?

Are the Criminologists insert criminal of the gaps in their investigation?
ITS NOT GOD DID IT, ITS I KNOW THEREFOR GOD.
You are the one that inserting chance, chance doesn't exist its fairy dust, you can't insert something that doesn't exist as a counter argument, i can insert intention because intention exists,i have intention i know what it feels like to have intention and i know that i am conscious.

I haven't filled the Physical Universe with a God, you did it with chance because chance applies only on Materialism so your God is the Eternal Universe of the 17th century with different appearance.

I'm not sure what you're going on about.

I understand very well

Read the last paragraph on page 3. It specifically states that the result shows that inflation must be finite in the past, and there must be space-time boundary.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

Yes, a space-time boundary. How does one leap from that to an absolute-beginning-from-nothing?

I think it can be shown that the probability of a universe capable of supporting ANY form of complex life is one out of infinity (or in comprehensible terms: exactly zero). This sounds like a grandiose claim, but it seems to me to be obvious, once you consider any fine tuned constant. Consider, for example, the fine tuning of gravity. The fine tuning of it is 1 part in 10^40. That is +/- 1 part away from that value would be life prohibiting (at least for any complex life). Though it should be enough to reasonably infer design. That is only looking at how sensitive that value is to change. It doesn’t really address what that value could have been. That is, when you also consider what the range of possible values could have been outside of the life permitting range, then you are looking at the probability that the value you have would even be what it is. There could be possibly be an infinite number of possible values for the gravitational constant.
For example, suppose the gravitational constant was increased +1. The fine-tuning argument would suggest gravity would be so great, that the universe would collapse in on itself before life had any chance to evolve (insomuch as any macro-evolution can occur in the first place). Ok. We added +1 to what the gravitational constant could have been. What if it was +2. Then we don’t need to do the math to know that it would be even more life prohibitive. How about +3? Still no life. Why stop there….How about +4? +5? …..etc… to.+infinity? The same goes in the opposite direction. -1 and the universe can’t form heavy elements, and stars would not form (insomuch as stars could form from a big bang in the first place). If you go -2 from fine tuning, you obviously don’t help the prospects, you logically hurt the prospects of any form of life. This would go all the way that possible range will go (probably to 0). But you still have an infinite number of possibilities.
So, I’d content, if it can be shown that the range of possibilities could be infinite, then it necessarily means that our universe is infinitely fine tuned.
And that’s just looking at one fine tuned constant.
One might attempt to counter act the problem, but let’s be honest. ANY possible way one might think of to increase the range can be met with an infinite number of ways to break it. Breaking is easy…fixing, is not.
Design is the only rational conclusion.

If the values of any of these constants were different, then black holes could not form. Therefore, the values have been fine-tuned to ensure the formation of black holes. Therefore, our universe was designed for black holes. Life, and everything else, is merely a byproduct of the universe being finely tuned for black holes. A designer obsessed with black holes is therefore the only rational conclusion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just to show what we don't really know:

One of the fundamental laws of physics does not appear to be constant throughout the universe and may change depending on where you are, suggest researchers.

Professor John Webb, from the University of New South Wales, and colleagues, say their findings could help explain why it was possible for life to develop on Earth but perhaps not in other parts of the universe.

According to standard model, the strength of electromagnetism - one of the four fundamental forces of nature - should be constant throughout the cosmos, but Webb and colleagues have found otherwise.

"The strength of electromagnetism ... seems to vary across the universe," says Webb.

Law of nature 'not so constant' after all › News in Science (ABC Science)


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JimFit]

Jim,

You seem to be a little lite on evidence to support your claims. No problem believing what you choose though on faith alone.

I have intention, you have intention so how my claims aren't strong?
The Fine Tuning proves intention because the process was deterministic and not random, prove me that chance exists.

 

[JimFit]

Au contraire, it's evidence we value most!

Its either chance or intention, prove me chance, all it has been shown is intention.

 

[bhsmte]

I have intention, you have intention so how my claims aren't strong?
The Fine Tuning proves intention because the process was deterministic and not random, prove me that chance exists.

Objective evidence is independent of intention Jim and you are lacking in that area.

 

[JimFit]

You haven't provided any evidence in any shape or form. All you do is drone on about the requirement for a creator therefore a creator exists or that for the constants to be right for life requiring some conscious input. Rubbish.

So now creations doesn't exist? Everything is an accident? LOL
To deny my arguments you must prove me that intention and creators doesn't exist and everything including you are zombies that obey laws that are eternal which science doesn't agree with this, the big bang was the start of everything including the physical laws.

There is nothing whatsoever stopping the universal constants having arisen naturally. We don't even know if it is possible for them to be different. It may be that is the only way the universe can exist.

Argument from Physical Necessity when there was nothing physical without the Universe lol, that's the argument that the Universe was popped out of nothingness by itself. Its not reasonable to believe.

You want there to be a creator to fit in your belief system and will shoehorn anything into that paradigm in order to maintain you belief despite any evidence to the contrary.

Creators exists, i am a Creator, the only conclusion for the Universe is Design and i have said why, because Chance (Infinite Universes that create a Universe) its flawed philosophy, this philosophy is also grounded on Pantheism the philosophy that the Universe is Eternal.

 

[JimFit]

Why should I?

If there was no Design then the Universe was a random accident without intention that was created either by chance or physical necessity. Is there a fourth argument i miss?

You are walking in the street and suddenly you meet your friend, you haven't planned it (Intention) it was through chance but even chance isn't random its probabilistic (in a small area its more possible to meet your friend by chance).

 

[Loudmouth]

If there was no Design then the Universe was a random accident without intention that was created either by chance or physical necessity. Is there a fourth argument i miss?

If you want to claim it was designed, shouldn't you be required to present positive evidence for design?

If we have no evidence for chance, necessity, or design, why is design the winner?

 

[Mainframes]

Chance is merely the unknown factor in vents caused by the inability to accurately measure every single variable to a high degree of accuracy.

You cannot prove something does not exist. So it is up to you to show us the creator and/or what changes were made to give a tuned universe as opposed to simply the universe as it fell into place.

Your fallacy is that you desire a conclusion of a creator ie a god and therefore have decided that something that you can't wrap your head around must be created.

 

[JimFit]

As already shown, non-intelligent and natural processes create things all of the time.

All you have showed me is that only conscious beings can create.

cre·a·tion noun \krē-ˈā-shən\

: the act of making or producing something that did not exist before : the act of creating something


Physical necessity can't create when there is nothing physical. Thunderbolts don't act on its own.

I don't have to counter arguments that have no evidence to support them.

You don't accept Design because you have a counter argument, that counter argument is chance the opposite of intention, please provide evidence about chance. The only thing you can do to refute intention is to refute intention as a whole, intention doesn't exist, we are p-zombies.

And yet they still create.

Because they determined by the physics. physics don't act on their own.

No, it hasn't. All that has been observed is that there is an increase in counts at certain times of the year. They still haven't shown that this is due to real decays or due to measurement error. It is much like the "faster than light neutrinos" a while back. Those turned out to be instrument error.

All that has been observed is that there is an increase = affection = determinism

That's completely false. Nothing about life on Earth requires the existence of the Andromeda galaxy. God could have created just our solar system, and life would kick along just fine.

Everything in the Universe exists as an open system since the Universe was once a subatomic particle, even galaxies exist inside galaxy clusters, there is a connection that we OBSERVE.

You are blabbering.

Physical necessity draws numbers from something Physical not something non physical.

What evidence have you presented for God creating anything?

Me, i have consciousness, i can create, God is a conscious being that created us because something unconscious couldn't understand consciousness to create consciousness.