A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't see ignorance, i see evidence.

Obviously you consider it evidence, but it's not.

Appear to ignorance is for the Atheists which believe RANDOMNESS NOTHINGNESS AND LUCK, these 3 are the definition of ignorance since they don't provide a cause.

This is obviously a strawman; indeed it appears to be your favourite strawman.

 

[lasthero]

Dr. Eugene V. Koonin, who is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Dr. Koonin is...

I'm asking for his exact words. As in, a link to where I can read his word unfiltered. You have read his stuff, right?

 

[Davian]

I'm asking for his exact words. As in, a link to where I can read his word unfiltered. You have read his stuff, right?

Try here, with open peer reviews.

Biology Direct | Full text | The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

 

[JimFit]

Obviously you consider it evidence, but it's not.

If the values of the Constants and the laws of physics are not evidence then they are subjective so science is like art, subjective but of course you don't believe that, you believe that Science gives answers therefor Science MUST be objective. The objectivity of Science gives us the Fine Tuning and that as you already know destroys the Atheistic belief that we are purposeless mistakes that nothingness spewed.

This is obviously a strawman; indeed it appears to be your favourite strawman.

Of course its not.

If you believe that there is no God inevitably you believe in randomness, if i throw you a rock you will not blame the rock neither the laws of physics, you will blame my action, not even me as an entity since you can't be biased with me without a reason. If something wasn't intended it is by definition random but randomness exists only as a definition, there is nothing random in Nature.

 

[JimFit]

I'm asking for his exact words. As in, a link to where I can read his word unfiltered. You have read his stuff, right?

Here

Biology Direct | Full text | The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

In this work, Eugene Koonin estimates the probability of arriving at a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution and comes to a cosmologically small number…
The context of this article is framed by the current lack of a complete and plausible scenario for the origin of life. Koonin specifically addresses the front-runner model, that of the RNA-world, where self-replicating RNA molecules precede a translation system. He notes that in addition to the difficulties involved in achieving such a system is the paradox of attaining a translation system through Darwinian selection. That this is indeed a bona-fide paradox is appreciated by the fact that, without a shortage [of] effort, a plausible scenario for translation evolution has not been proposed to date. There have been other models for the origin of life, including the ground-breaking Lipid-world model advanced by Segrè, Lancet and colleagues (reviewed in EMBO Reports (2000), 1(3), 217–222), but despite much ingenuity and effort, it is fair to say that all origin of life models suffer from astoundingly low probabilities of actually occurring…
…[F]uture work may show that starting from just a simple assembly of molecules, non-anthropic principles can account for each step along the rise to the threshold of Darwinian evolution. Based upon the new perspective afforded to us by Koonin this now appears unlikely. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
​

 

[Eudaimonist]

If the values of the Constants and the laws of physics are not evidence then they are subjective so science is like art, subjective but of course you don't believe that, you believe that Science gives answers therefor Science MUST be objective. The objectivity of Science gives us the Fine Tuning and that as you already know destroys the Atheistic belief that we are purposeless mistakes that nothingness spewed.

That doesn't make any sense. No one here is saying that science is subjective. No atheist here is asserting that "we are purposeless mistakes that nothingness spewed" that I have seen. Science does not give us the Fine Tuning argument, as that is a product of philosophy (or, rather, theology).

If you believe that there is no God inevitably you believe in randomness

I believe in unplanned natural processes. Whether those processes involve randomness or not is another issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the values of the Constants and the laws of physics are not evidence then they are subjective so science is like art, subjective but of course you don't believe that, you believe that Science gives answers therefor Science MUST be objective. The objectivity of Science gives us the Fine Tuning and that as you already know destroys the Atheistic belief that we are purposeless mistakes that nothingness spewed.

Yet another strawman.

Of course its not.

If you believe that there is no God inevitably you believe in randomness, if i throw you a rock you will not blame the rock neither the laws of physics, you will blame my action, not even me as an entity since you can't be biased with me without a reason. If something wasn't intended it is by definition random but randomness exists only as a definition, there is nothing random in Nature.

 

[JimFit]

That doesn't make any sense. No one here is saying that science is subjective.

If Science isn't subjective then it follows Determinism and Ηierarchy therefor these Constants are objective for the Universe to exist. Even if they are proven subjective they must be subjective to the objectivity of something else above them but this chain cannot continue forever. That's why the Multiverse scenario doesn't solve the fine tuning because Multiverses also need fundamental constants and laws to exist.

No atheist here is asserting that "we are purposeless mistakes that nothingness spewed" that I have seen.

He doesn't have to, whatever is not intended it is by definition a random cosmic mistake. Since the Universe had a beginning inevitably you will go to the second scenario that the Universe magically popped into existence from absolute Nothingness (and no, quantum vacuum is not nothing).

Science does not give us the Fine Tuning argument, as that is a product of philosophy (or, rather, theology).

Of course it does, its called Evolution. Something prior to something else must exist to determine it, if etc the value of one Constant was different we would have different results, its not philosophy its science because it makes predictions.

I believe in unplanned natural processes. Whether those processes involve randomness or not is another issue.

You can't have infinite past chain of events, the natural processes cannot continue forever in the past since everything Natural began to exist. You need an Ultimate cause and that cause is transcendent since everything physical including time and space began. You can't hide yourslef behing Natural phenomena anymore. Plus to that, if i throw you a rock and i have a plan to hit you but i am standing behind a tree so you cannot see me you will not blame the rock nor the laws of physics, you will think that there is a conscious being that throw you the rock to hit you without seeing me, you will not think that the rock somehow had infinite past causes and there was no intention behind.
Randomness doesn't exist, something Random is by definition something that cannot have be determined or determine anything and that definition exists only in Nothingness since nothing is the absence or everything that can determine something, that's why Nothing determine something is ridiculous.

 

[JimFit]

Yet another strawman.

Why?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why?

Why? Because most atheists don't accept your false dichotomy: they don't believe in "randomness" and "nothingness" in the way in which you've described it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If Science isn't subjective then it follows Determinism and Ηierarchy therefor these Constants are objective for the Universe to exist. Even if they are proven subjective they must be subjective to the objectivity of something else above them but this chain cannot continue forever. That's why the Multiverse scenario doesn't solve the fine tuning because Multiverses also need fundamental constants and laws to exist.

I can't make much sense out of the above.

Since the Universe had a beginning inevitably you will go to the second scenario that the Universe magically popped into existence from absolute Nothingness (and no, quantum vacuum is not nothing).

Inevitably? I have never taken that position, and never would.

Of course it does, its called Evolution.

Evolution isn't a fine tuning argument.

Something prior to something else must exist to determine it, if etc the value of one Constant was different we would have different results, its not philosophy its science because it makes predictions.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

the natural processes cannot continue forever in the past since everything Natural began to exist.

I do side against an infinite past, but not based on that reasoning. It is enough to question infinite regress.

You need an Ultimate cause and that cause is transcendent since everything physical including time and space began.

The universe could have started with something physical that was uncreated by anything transcendent. It existed to begin with, instead of popping into existence out of nothing. Only afterwards -- through natural change -- does everything "begin to exist".

You can't hide yourslef behing Natural phenomena anymore.

It's far preferable to hiding behind non-existent transcendent entities.

Plus to that, if i throw you a rock and i have a plan to hit you but i am standing behind a tree so you cannot see me you will not blame the rock nor the laws of physics, you will think that there is a conscious being that throw you the rock to hit you without seeing me, you will not think that the rock somehow had infinite past causes and there was no intention behind.

Don't tell me what I will or will not think. I would not rule out options in which unplanned events could cause a rock to come my way, such as meteors, volcanic eruptions, landslides, earthquakes, or other natural events. There are many examples of unplanned natural events.

Randomness doesn't exist

Tell that to quantum physicists. It could be the case that something more deterministic, such as pilot wave theory, is true, but so far it does seem as if there is such a thing as natural randomness as found in quantum phenomena when they decohere. However, that doesn't have a great deal to do with the macro-world.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JimFit]

Why? Because most atheists don't accept your false dichotomy: they don't believe in "randomness" and "nothingness" in the way in which you've described it.

Of course they believe it, something that was not intended it is by definition a random event. Without Consciousness there is no intention.

 

[JimFit]

I can't make much sense out of the above.

I think i am clear. You can't have something subjective without an objective reality. The Constants are objective for our objective existence and that proves that our existence was predetermined. To disprove that you must present something random in our Creation.

Inevitably? I have never taken that position, and never would.

So you support an Eternal past Universe? But every scenario about an eternal Universe is debunked and the more we observe the Universe the more the Big Bang Theory is confirmed.

Evolution isn't a fine tuning argument.

OF COURSE IT IS, WITHOUT FINE TUNING THERE IS NO BIOLOGY! Evolution also is Deterministic and not random and that links it with the first cause.

Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study -- ScienceDaily

even mutations are deterministic

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Evolution driven by laws?

Evolution driven by laws? Not random mutations? | Uncommon Descent

That has nothing to do with evolution.

Of course it does, species don't come out of nothing.

The universe could have started with something physical that was uncreated by anything transcendent.

It existed to begin with, instead of popping into existence out of nothing. Only afterwards -- through natural change -- does everything "begin to exist".

Again,

The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater 1 that system had to have a finite beginning. This would apply in any multiverse scenario as well.

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

The Big Bang Theory states that the beginning of the Universe was the beginning of time and space and without space-time you can't have something physical...
​

It's far preferable to hiding behind non-existent transcendent entities.

So an Eternal Universe that cannot be known ever ever ever ever because it is past infinite it is better reasoning from a Creator which represends our Consciousness? Again God is not Mystical that's why we can do Science and can look the stages that led to us, Theism only makes the claim that this World was created (Science proved it) and our existence was pre-determined by a Consciousness which we call God and God is the Ultimate cause just like the Consciousness of a Scientist is the Ultimate cause of his observations. Consciousness is fundamental in whatever you do since without Consciousness there is no act.

Consciousness precedes Materialism.

Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

Don't tell me what I will or will not think. I would not rule out options in which unplanned events could cause a rock to come my way, such as meteors, volcanic eruptions, landslides, earthquakes, or other natural events. There are many examples of unplanned natural events.

What if i kept to throw you rocks in the head? Would you still make the claim that there are earthquakes, erraptions, asteroids?

Tell that to quantum physicists. It could be the case that something more deterministic, such as pilot wave theory, is true, but so far it does seem as if there is such a thing as natural randomness as found in quantum phenomena when they decohere. However, that doesn't have a great deal to do with the macro-world.

There is no randomness in quantum physics.
Something random is something that is not determined by anything nor determined something. Not even the radioactive decay is random.

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

As for pilot theory i wouldn't put my faith on it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course they believe it, something that was not intended it is by definition a random event. Without Consciousness there is no intention.

Who are you to tell them what they believe?

 

[Ken-1122]

Some of the evidence that supports my certainty that God produced and sustains the universe is that it is finely tuned all over to allow even the existence of atomic matter, let alone life and consciousness. If one of the fundamental constants (the weak atomic force for example) was off by a scale of a hair, molecular existence would not form at all.


What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos


Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life.

So why is there such a lack of life in the Universe?

Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

.

 

[Davian]

So why is there such a lack of life in the Universe?

Ken

The OP hasn't been active here since October. Somehow he got the idea to head over to Cosmoquest and pitch his ideas there.

The Great Contraction Theory and the Supra-symetric Holotropic Metaverse.

That didn't go well, and then it looks like he ran out of propellant.

I wonder where he got the idea to go to Cosmoquest.

 

[JimFit]

So why is there such a lack of life in the Universe?

Ken

Aren't you alive?

“The universe is too big, too old and too cruel”: three silly objections to cosmological fine-tuning (Part Two) | Uncommon Descent

“The universe is too big, too old and too cruel”: three silly objections to cosmological fine-tuning (Part One) | Uncommon Descent

 

[FredVB]

Either way you have to have faith, whichever position in the argument you take. If it is that there can't be the Creator to explain everything, you lack what should deal with necessary existence that must be there, and you have to have faith that there are huge numbers in a multitude of alternate universes, with what is known of the exactness of physical constants in our universe being needed with a big bang to explain it as it is, while there is zero evidence of any one alternate universe.

To say that the odds are too far against those constants being just right for it without it planned and brought about does not have need for there to be knowledge of other universes, as there certainly isn't among any of us, and there is no evidence at all of such. So it is, the universe coming from the presumed big bang with universal constants being only slightly different would not have us or any kind of life possible, this we can know, as scientists do. With our one universe, there isn't such probability for it to be expected at all. If the constants are not in any way parameters that are set, no other universes from their big bangs could have the possibility either. But if they are possibly arranged differently, there is evidence of God, and only seeking explanation without necessary existence finds this need for many other universes to explain ours, while there still is absolutely no evidence for such, and it would be inadequate with no explanation for anything ultimately, with dismissing necessary existence.

There must be the necessary existence behind the universal constants which are needed to be just as they are with the universe coming from the big bang.

I think all the complexity that works so well in many cases that are not from any human origin of design is good evidence, and there are so many testimonies supporting the perspective of God's invovement. And the universe itself with what I see must be with fine-tuning of parameters to explain it coming from a big bang isn't with a good explanation other than there being necessary existence behind it all with intelligence and power for all the design, with there being evidence for God that I have been mentioning, and theorizing multiple universes so that this one working, and with us in it, is possible to explain it is without any evidence at all.

For your claims of impossibility to be supported, you need to show that this universe is the only universe or one of a limited number of universes. Where is that evidence?
However, with many universes it would be expected that one of them would win, just as with the Powerball lottery.
Do we have to set the order of the balls in the Powerball lottery so that someone wins?

It is that improbable, without knowledge of such other universes, that is why there is a faith that there are such without any of the evidence for that. So I don't have to show the evidence that it is only faith without evidence that there are so many other universes and from that we are of the universe that works out. If it were otherwise, than it is for you or any of that position to show there really is the evidence, and with that still to show there isn't the Creator explaining all. This can't be done, can it? And in all this nothing is explaining the necessary existence.

In fact, about a hundred years ago, people thought the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire universe. Then, one day Edwin Hubble discovered "another universe" when he turned his telescope to the Andromeda Nebula.

My position calls for any who claim there are multitudes of other universes to show any evidence of any others. There isn't any evidence and this I can say. Showing any of any other things were being discovered doesn't do anything of showing such evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Either way you have to have faith, whichever position in the argument you take.

Why does it take faith to say, "I don't know"?