A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Belk]

So what about we say that the finely tuned constants are beyond the probabilities of naturalistic causes which are based on random chance. If the universe and existence was based on natural causes then we would expect not to see so many finely tuned parameters. Science has calculated these things and so it is the science that has come up with the conclusions. So we may not be able to automatically conclude that its God. But it does point to something beyond a self creating naturalistic cause which would indirectly point to some tampering of the conditions and therefore some intelligence behind things.

No, "science" has done no such thing and neither has there been any peer reviewed papers claiming any such thing. The fine tuning argument rests entirely in the realm of personal opinion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I certainly hope so!

Sounds like you were wrong... they were creating an authorized list.... since they themselves authorized the list.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds like you were wrong... they were creating an authorized list.... since they themselves authorized the list.

And we loop back to Post 981, don't we?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And we loop back to Post 981, don't we?

Indeed -- and maybe this time you'll recognize your error.

The problem with the "legal tender" analogy is that the people sorting the money are the same ones who are authorized to make it... so the sorters have the authority to create a three-dollar bill and authorize it as legal tender.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with the "legal tender" analogy is that the people sorting the money are the same ones who are authorized to make it...

So that council was made up of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Adam, Noah, Samuel, David, Daniel, Hosea, Habakkuk, Seth, Abraham, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Moses, Amos, et. a few al.?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So that council was made up of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Adam, Noah, Samuel, David, Daniel, Hosea, Habakkuk, Seth, Abraham, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Moses, Amos, et. a few al.?

No, they would be made my members of the Council of Nicea... the people who actually made the list.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they would be made my members of the Council of Nicea... the people who actually made the list.

The individual books of the Bible were already authorized LONG before that council convened.

 

[stevevw]

No, "science" has done no such thing and neither has there been any peer reviewed papers claiming any such thing. The fine tuning argument rests entirely in the realm of personal opinion.

So who calculated all the constants. So are you saying if they change these physical constants it wont make any difference. How is it personal opinion. Why do so many scientists say that the universe and is finely tuned itself and also finely tuned for life. There are something like over 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life. Why is it that they have been searching for another earth type planet is the so called sweet spot that may have life. If it needs to be in this sweet spot isn't that evidence in itself that many things need to be just right for life to exist as we know it.

Heres a peer reviewed paper on the design of life and fine tuning.
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
With an increase in universal density on the order of just 1:1060, the gravitational pull would cause the universe to collapse on itself, while a density slightly lower by the same amount would cause the universe to expand at such a rate that galaxies would most likely never form at all, let alone contain life.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279

Why do they come up with theories of multiverses (multiverse: anthropic principle), Inflation theory (Inflation (cosmology) and The bubble universe model to help address the fine tuning if its just based on personal opinion. If the universe isn't so finely tuned for life and earth isn't so special then we should find plenty of life out there in the unlimited universe.

Anyway Stephen Hawkins seems to support that opinion and so do many other great scientists.
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
http://futurism.com/new-evidence-an...cs-constants-underlie-life-enabling-universe/

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

 

[TLK Valentine]

The individual books of the Bible were already authorized LONG before that council convened.

And we loop back to Post 989, don't we?

 

[Michael]

So who calculated all the constants. So are you saying if they change these physical constants it wont make any difference. How is it personal opinion. Why do so many scientists say that the universe and is finely tuned itself and also finely tuned for life. There are something like over 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life. Why is it that they have been searching for another earth type planet is the so called sweet spot that may have life. If it needs to be in this sweet spot isn't that evidence in itself that many things need to be just right for life to exist as we know it.

Heres a peer reviewed paper on the design of life and fine tuning.
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
With an increase in universal density on the order of just 1:1060, the gravitational pull would cause the universe to collapse on itself, while a density slightly lower by the same amount would cause the universe to expand at such a rate that galaxies would most likely never form at all, let alone contain life.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279

Why do they come up with theories of multiverses (multiverse: anthropic principle), Inflation theory (Inflation (cosmology) and The bubble universe model to help address the fine tuning if its just based on personal opinion. If the universe isn't so finely tuned for life and earth isn't so special then we should find plenty of life out there in the unlimited universe.

Anyway Stephen Hawkins seems to support that opinion and so do many other great scientists.
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
http://futurism.com/new-evidence-an...cs-constants-underlie-life-enabling-universe/

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

I feel compelled to point out that most of the "fine tuning" related to these comments that you've selected is directly related back to one *specific* cosmology theory, one that may or may not have any actual empirical merit. Plasma cosmology theory can explain the same observations without any multiverses, or inflation, or "fine tuning" for instance.

 

[Belk]

So who calculated all the constants. So are you saying if they change these physical constants it wont make any difference.

No, I made no such claim. I claimed that saying the universe is "fine tuned" is an opinion.

How is it personal opinion.

Because things not backed by data are personal opinion. There is no data the shows our universe could be different then it is let alone data that supports your claim of an expectation of less "finely tuned parameters" if the universe was due to natural causes. Especially since science only deals in natural causes.

Why do so many scientists say that the universe and is finely tuned itself and also finely tuned for life. There are something like over 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life. Why is it that they have been searching for another earth type planet is the so called sweet spot that may have life. If it needs to be in this sweet spot isn't that evidence in itself that many things need to be just right for life to exist as we know it.

Because we know the parameters required for the type of life we know of. Namely the only type of life we are able to study on this planet. We have no idea what other types of life might be out there.

Heres a peer reviewed paper on the design of life and fine tuning.
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
With an increase in universal density on the order of just 1:1060, the gravitational pull would cause the universe to collapse on itself, while a density slightly lower by the same amount would cause the universe to expand at such a rate that galaxies would most likely never form at all, let alone contain life.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279

http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279

WIT Press is the publishing service of the Wessex Institute of Technology. It publishes conference proceedings, journals and a number of specialised research monographs and edited works.

It does not appear to be a peer reviewed publication.

Why do they come up with theories of multiverses (multiverse: anthropic principle), Inflation theory (Inflation (cosmology) and The bubble universe model to help address the fine tuning if its just based on personal opinion. If the universe isn't so finely tuned for life and earth isn't so special then we should find plenty of life out there in the unlimited universe.

You are claiming that if the universe is not fine tuned for life we should find more life out in the universe?

So no, not science.

Anyway Stephen Hawkins seems to support that opinion and so do many other great scientists.
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
http://futurism.com/new-evidence-an...cs-constants-underlie-life-enabling-universe/

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

I presume you mean Stephen Hawking? The guy who claims the Universe could have an entirely natural origin?
http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

 

[Michael]

Because things not backed by data are personal opinion. There is no data the shows our universe could be different then it is let alone data that supports your claim of an expectation of less "finely tuned parameters" if the universe was due to natural causes. Especially since science only deals in natural causes.

That is technically incorrect. "Science" deals with all sorts of "supernatural/hypothetical" agents, including "space expansion", "dark energy", "dark matter", inflation, string theory, yada, yada, yada, none of which have any empirical effect on a single photon in a lab.

 

[Belk]

That is technically incorrect. "Science" deals with all sorts of "supernatural/hypothetical" agents, including "space expansion", "dark energy", "dark matter", inflation, string theory, yada, yada, yada, none of which have any empirical effect on a single photon in a lab.

That's nice Michael.

 

[Michael]

That's nice Michael.

Just saying.....

Besides, most of his basic argument is directly related the need to "fine tune" those various hypothetical/supernatural invisible cosmology agents "exactly right" to get everything to fit perfectly.

 

[Belk]

Just saying.....

Besides, most of his basic argument is directly related the need to "fine tune" those various hypothetical/supernatural invisible cosmology agents "exactly right" to get everything to fit perfectly.

Yes dear.

 

[stevevw]

That is technically incorrect. "Science" deals with all sorts of "supernatural/hypothetical" agents, including "space expansion", "dark energy", "dark matter", inflation, string theory, yada, yada, yada, none of which have any empirical effect on a single photon in a lab.

I agree, science will present these ideas as strong possibilities. They present them one after the other theorizing that the answer will be somewhere along one of these ideas maybe with a bit of tweaking. String theory has been around for some time now and is being adjusted and added to such as with M theory now. Thats because this idea has the possibility of answering everything that scientist are finding hard to explain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So what about we say that the finely tuned constants are beyond the probabilities of naturalistic causes which are based on random chance. If the universe and existence was based on natural causes then we would expect not to see so many finely tuned parameters. Science has calculated these things and so it is the science that has come up with the conclusions. So we may not be able to automatically conclude that its God. But it does point to something beyond a self creating naturalistic cause which would indirectly point to some tampering of the conditions and therefore some intelligence behind things.

No, science has not established that it is "if the universe ... was based on natural causes then we would expect not to see so many finely tuned parameters."

 

[stevevw]

No, I made no such claim. I claimed that saying the universe is "fine tuned" is an opinion.

So are you saying that the physical parameters like the Ratio of Electrons to protons 1:10/37, Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10/40, Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10/55 and say the Mass Density of Universe1 1:10/59 are not finely tuned and can exist in other ratios.
If we change them slightly it wont make any difference.

Because things not backed by data are personal opinion. There is no data the shows our universe could be different then it is let alone data that supports your claim of an expectation of less "finely tuned parameters" if the universe was due to natural causes. Especially since science only deals in natural causes.

I thought the measurements they made for these parameters was backed by the science and is part of the laws of physics. Changing these parameters will affect the physics of these constants which will produce a different outcome.

When you consider the earths position o our Sun which is a rare star in itself. When you consider the moons position to us and its unique size which is very big compared to other moons. When you consider the unusual tilts and spins they have/ How this all adds up to creating an atmosphere with the right reasons, tides, gravity for organic life its quite amazing. When you consider the position of our solar system in our galaxy that its in just the right place it all adds up to incredible odds. And thats just a small portion of the incredible things that have had to occur to bring life to our planet.

Because we know the parameters required for the type of life we know of. Namely the only type of life we are able to study on this planet. We have no idea what other types of life might be out there.

But the life we know of is the life we have to measure. If we use our life as the measuring stick then the parameters will have to be like the ones we have. If there was some other life that was more primitive to ours its still going to need an awful lot of similar parameters. Even if you consider bacteria as life it still needs some amazing conditions to occur.

I dont think scientists have come near to finding anything that is remotely similar. But the strange thing is evolution keeps saying that life can create itself through chemicals and a few other conditions. Now the universe is full of these things so it would seem likely that some form of life should be created somewhere. Now if our parameters aren't that special and evolution is able to produce certain results in certain conditions and with such an unlimited universe with billions upon billions of stars and planets we would expect to find some life. In fact we should find similar life if its not so special.

It does not appear to be a peer reviewed publication.

Its open access so its freely available for all to view and assess. I cant find anything that states its position either way. But these journals are normally peer reviewed. I only found this statement. Normally if anyone supporting the the mainstream opinion or something like evolution will accept papers no matter what.

Is it true that Open Access articles and journals are not peer-reviewed?
No. A journal”s economic or access policy does not determine its peer review policy. Most scholarly journals, whether open access or controlled-access journals, are peer-reviewed. There are both open and controlled journals that are not peer-reviewed.

You are claiming that if the universe is not fine tuned for life we should find more life out in the universe?

So no, not science.

Yet many scientists will accept things like string theory and multiverses. I would have thought the science for calculating the measurements of the physical constants was proven. That any adjustments to those exact calculations would change things one way of another. It doesn't take rocket science.

I presume you mean Stephen Hawking? The guy who claims the Universe could have an entirely natural origin?
http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Yeah he states that the physical parameters for our universe and life are finely tuned.

You have to remember that the fine tuning argument is only part of why people say that existence and life are designed and have some intelligence behind them. All of life has to much order, code, patterns, even maths that can beautifully add up to showing how things conform to a calculated existence that has been designed rather than popped into existence by random chance and accident.

 

[stevevw]

No, science has not established that it is "if the universe ... was based on natural causes then we would expect not to see so many finely tuned parameters."

Why according to the odds of probability there is a point for which to many conditions are beyond the point of chance. That is a well known criteria for which science adheres to. You can say that a few parameters may by just right that an event can happen by chance or a naturalistic process. But when there up to a couple of hundred conditions with some being so finely precise that the odds are greater than the amount of atoms in the universe you begin to have to acknowledge that there is something going on besides mere luck or chance. That is the science at work. To deny it is going against the science. many great scientists acknowledge the fine tuning of the universe and life and they seem to be basing it on science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why according to the odds of probability there is a point for which to many conditions are beyond the point of chance.

This sentence is nonsensical.

That is a well known criteria for which science adheres to. You can say that a few parameters may by just right that an event can happen. But when there up to a couple of hundred conditions with some being so finely precise that the odds or greater than the amount of atoms in the universe you begin to have to acknowledge that there is something going on besides mere luck or chance. That is the science at work. To deny it is going against the science.

The only thing I'm objecting to is your woo, which you often conflate with science.