Where did the laws of nature come from?

[[serious]]

Ive heard the puddle analogy a few times. Its a popular come back from atheists. It poor analogy and begs the question.
The fine tuning argument speaks about specified complexity and that there is scientific evidence to show there are over 30 physical constants that need to be precise to within a very narrow parameter for life to exist. The puddle analogy just appeals to the naturalistic presupposition that “it just so happens that life is able to exist because the constants are where they should be to permit life.” By assuming that the universe is similar to the puddle, the atheist effectively begs the question, for he is simply assuming what he is trying to argue.

Further, the analogy is weak. The hole symbolizes the universe and the puddle symbolizes humanity. However, the hole does not have specified complexity in the instance of this analogy. Further, there is no evidence given that the universe is anything like the puddle other than a mere assertion of “the universe/puddle can support life/water because that is just the way it is.”
http://answersforhope.org/destroying-the-puddle-analogy/

Any configuration of dirt supports water whereas very, very few configurations of physics can support life. Some skeptical scientists who have studied the fine-tuning explicitly state this analogy “doesn’t hold water” – such as David Deutsch
http://crossexamined.org/mistaken-objections-seek-trivialize-fine-tuning/

The dirt hole actually needs sufficiently poor drainage to support a puddle. As for the number of configurations of the universe that could support some for of life, we have no idea. What we do know is that this particular configuration of life works with this particular universe. Likewise, any particular puddle works well with its particular hole.

 

[stevevw]

The dirt hole actually needs sufficiently poor drainage to support a puddle. As for the number of configurations of the universe that could support some for of life, we have no idea. What we do know is that this particular configuration of life works with this particular universe. Likewise, any particular puddle works well with its particular hole.

But the hole which is suppose to represent the universe isn't seen as having complexity and many constants that need to be very precise to accommodate that puddle. As stated any configuration of dirt can support water. Whereas very, very few configurations of physics can support life. Plus the other fine tuned argument is that the universe is itself fined tuned to exist. So the puddle example doesn't explain how the puddle can exist in the first place.

The idea of multiverses has been put forward as another way of dealing with the fine tuning of life. By suggesting that there are millions if not billions of alternative universes it makes our particular universe just one of many. So we just happen to be in the one that was just right for life. But this brings up other problems as well. There could also be many universes with another you or me in them. there could be varying life forms or strange goings on in other universes. But this is all speculation because it hasn't been verified and can never be verified. Its just a convenient way of trying to defer the fine tuning argument. All we have is our universe and our life and it seems very fine tuned to be here.

 

[[serious]]

But the hole which is suppose to represent the universe isn't seen as having complexity and many constants that need to be very precise to accommodate that puddle. As stated any configuration of dirt can support water. Whereas very, very few configurations of physics can support life. Plus the other fine tuned argument is that the universe is itself fined tuned to exist. So the puddle example doesn't explain how the puddle can exist in the first place.

The idea of multiverses has been put forward as another way of dealing with the fine tuning of life. By suggesting that there are millions if not billions of alternative universes it makes our particular universe just one of many. So we just happen to be in the one that was just right for life. But this brings up other problems as well. There could also be many universes with another you or me in them. there could be varying life forms or strange goings on in other universes. But this is all speculation because it hasn't been verified and can never be verified. Its just a convenient way of trying to defer the fine tuning argument. All we have is our universe and our life and it seems very fine tuned to be here.

As I said before, we don't know how many other possible configurations of life there are. We see our configuration in our universe, but do not know what life might be possible if or universe were different. Likewise, Adams puddle might not know that other shapes and depths of puddles are possible.

What it really boils down to its even if there is fine tuning, we have no reason to suppose the universe is timed to life rather than life running to the universe.

 

[stevevw]

As I said before, we don't know how many other possible configurations of life there are. We see our configuration in our universe, but do not know what life might be possible if or universe were different. Likewise, Adams puddle might not know that other shapes and depths of puddles are possible.

What it really boils down to its even if there is fine tuning, we have no reason to suppose the universe is timed to life rather than life running to the universe.

Fair enough, but I think the fine tuning argument get even more refined than allowing for other types of life. The idea of considering other possible life in different types of universes is what is proposed by the multiverse idea. But the fine tuning argument at its strictest doesn't allow for other possible life at al. There are over 30 physical constants that if changed even slightly will not allow either the universe or any universe at all or many of the things that allow any life to exist.

Some examples are,
* If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10/60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.
* If gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.
* If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons.

So if you apply that to the puddle, changing the hole shape even slightly wont allow water to exist to fill that puddle in the first place.

 

[[serious]]

Fair enough, but I think the fine tuning argument get even more refined than allowing for other types of life. The idea of considering other possible life in different types of universes is what is proposed by the multiverse idea. But the fine tuning argument at its strictest doesn't allow for other possible life at al. There are over 30 physical constants that if changed even slightly will not allow either the universe or any universe at all or many of the things that allow any life to exist.

Some examples are,

There are several claims floating around to that effect, but I've yet to see sources for those claims. Many such lists include claims to the dozens or even hundreds of decimal places, which is ridiculous on it's face since the most precisely measured constant is only known to 12 decimal places. (that would be the magnetic moment of the electron)

* If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10/60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.

Citation needed.

* If gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.

The gravitational constant is only known to 6 significant figures.

* If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons.

Citation needed

So if you apply that to the puddle, changing the hole shape even slightly wont allow water to exist to fill that puddle in the first place.

If the hole were even a little shallower, the puddle as we know it would be impossible!

 

[Gracchus]

Fair enough, but I think the fine tuning argument get even more refined than allowing for other types of life. The idea of considering other possible life in different types of universes is what is proposed by the multiverse idea. But the fine tuning argument at its strictest doesn't allow for other possible life at al. There are over 30 physical constants that if changed even slightly will not allow either the universe or any universe at all or many of the things that allow any life to exist.

Some examples are,
* If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10/60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form.
* If gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.
* If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life would be impossible, for a variety of different reasons.

So if you apply that to the puddle, changing the hole shape even slightly wont allow water to exist to fill that puddle in the first place.

I have never bought into the fine-tuning argument, because we have no evidence that constants can be other than they are. If they changed we wouldn't call them constants.
You may indeed argue that if the gravitational constant (G) changed, it would make stars impossible. But I don't think there is any evidence that the gravitational constant can be other than it is. Periodic functions that describe electromagnetism, and forces that drop off with the square of the distance, involve Pi, and Pi can only be what it is, and you cannot change it by one part in any finite number. Probabilities must range between one and zero. If you could change them then many things could be different, but some things just necessarily are. And some things just aren't, in spite of wishful thinking and fantastic speculation.
Philosophy, and it's half-with cousin, theology, were invented by folks who didn't have answers. It is a breeding ground of sometimes sound logic with ridiculous premises, poorly defined terms and shifting meanings.
If ... then... maybe... is not evidence of design or even an argument for design. We see what we see. The constants are what they are. And if the physical constants of the universe were just a little different then maybe pigs could fly by blowing flatulence through their curly tails and we could all ride them to the moon and eat cheese.

 

[stevevw]

There are several claims floating around to that effect, but I've yet to see sources for those claims. Many such lists include claims to the dozens or even hundreds of decimal places, which is ridiculous on it's face since the most precisely measured constant is only known to 12 decimal places. (that would be the magnetic moment of the electron)

I don’t think they are saying that these constants are so many decimals long in their measurements. They are refining the small variations that will make a difference to the outcomes down to many decimal places. In other words if something was exactly 10 it could be varied by .00000000001 to make it 9.99999999999. It’s the very small variations they are talking about which make the fine tuning.

There are many great scientists who have commented on the fine tuning of the universe and have proposed massive fine tuning of certain constants. Steven Weinberg who is a noted atheists said the following,
He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument

Citation needed.

http://www.academia.edu/10290834/An_Introduction_to_the_Cosmic_Design_Argument
http://philpapers.org/rec/COLTTA-3
This is also known as the flatness problem and the critical mass in the cosmic inflation model of the universe
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_accelerating.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

The gravitational constant is only known to 6 significant figures.

Once again I think they are talking about the tiny difference in how much the constant can vary. As we know all numbers can be broken down into many decimals if need be to show how refined something can be.So when they say if the constant varied by just one in 10/60 parts they mean from its determined measurement of (Gravitational Constant: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument#ixzz3yuyKdNge

Citation needed

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf

If the hole were even a little shallower, the puddle as we know it would be impossible!

Yes and thats what the fine tuning argument is saying. If the constants were a little different then in some cases the universe and/or life wouldn't come into existence.

 

[[serious]]

I don’t think they are saying that these constants are so many decimals long in their measurements. They are refining the small variations that will make a difference to the outcomes down to many decimal places. In other words if something was exactly 10 it could be varied by .00000000001 to make it 9.99999999999. It’s the very small variations they are talking about which make the fine tuning.

There are many great scientists who have commented on the fine tuning of the universe and have proposed massive fine tuning of certain constants. Steven Weinberg who is a noted atheists said the following,
He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

This is perhaps the most ridiculous fine tuning argument I've ever heard. Not only is the vacuum energy not known to any reasonable precision, it isn't even consistently predicted by the mathematics. In fact, different aspects of physics predict different values of the vacuum energy of 100 orders of magnitude. I actually didn't think these arguments could get more wrong, but to claim the least mathematically precise value in physics is tuned to 10 decillion times the precision of the most accurately measured constant is, quite simply, insane. Or, to utilize an unreasonable number of zeros as you have, using arbitary units, the vacuum energy is predicted to be between:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

and

1

Read up on it, it's pretty interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe

Now as far as estimations of the effect OBSERVED values would have, we end up with only 1 order of magnitude of sensitivity according to wikipedia (though that specific line doesn't have a citation and I don't have time to dig at the moment). Either way, this argument is catastrophically wrong.

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument

Repeats the earlier claims without citation. This is a transcript of a youtube video, nothing more.

http://www.academia.edu/10290834/An_Introduction_to_the_Cosmic_Design_Argument

Kind of rambling, but at least cites Brandon Carter as a source, the trouble being that Brandon Carter posits the weak anthropic principle rather than any form of fine tuning. "we must be prepared to take account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers." and the strong anthropic principle, "the universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est." (the latin bit translates as "I think, therefore the world is such [as it is]"). No universe can be observed but those for which some observer may be formed, and no observer can be formed except at such a time and place within that universe that observers may be formed. The actual source of the precision claimed by the linked PDF I have yet to discover.

http://philpapers.org/rec/COLTTA-3

It's a sad day when the most relevant scientific source presented is a philosophy journal.

It's a sadder day when it isn't even a link to the paper, or even the abstract of the paper, but rather just a title of a paper.

The site at least has a link to the paper (the fact that you linked to a place that linked the paper rather than linking the paper yourself suggests you haven't read it by the way. If you haven't, as I suspect, please provide me with a page number where such figures are supported: http://www.commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf

I hardly have time to read someone else's link to an 80 page writing on philosophy if you lack the time to review your own citation of that same source

This is also known as the flatness problem and the critical mass in the cosmic inflation model of the universe
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_accelerating.html

Not a primary source, but at least what appears to be a moderately competent science blog at first glance. What i don't see is any reference to the flatness problem, and the references to critical mass are in the context of being invalidated by observations of the expanding universe.

From your link:

"The cosmic inflation model hypothesizes an Omega of exactly 1, so that the universe is in fact balanced on a knife’s edge between the two extreme possibilities. In that case, it will continue expanding, but gradually slowing down all the time, finally running out of steam only in the infinite future. For this to occur, though, the universe must contain exactly the critical mass of matter, which current calculations suggest should be about five atoms per cubic metre (equivalent to about 5 x 10-30 g/cm3).

This perhaps sounds like a tiny amount (indeed it is much closer to a perfect vacuum than has even been achieved by scientists on Earth), but the actual universe is, on average, much emptier still, with around 0.2 atoms per cubic metre, taking into account visible stars and diffuse gas betweengalaxies. Even including dark matter in the calculations, all thematter in the universe, both visible and dark, only amounts to about a quarter of the required critical mass, suggesting a continuously expanding universe."
You will note that we are not even close to such a critical mass, but rather about an order of magnitude off. As such, we can not be finely tuned to many orders of magnitude of such a value. Once again, your own source betrays your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

I take it back, the philosophy one might not be your best source. I would argue that Wikipedia is probably a better source than anything else you've yet presented. It states the problem, but sadly for you, also presents the solution if you had kept reading:

Inflation[edit]
Main article: Cosmic inflation
The standard solution to the flatness problem invokes cosmic inflation, a process whereby the universe expands exponentially quickly (i.e.

grows as

with time

, for some constant

) during a short period in its early history. The theory of inflation was first proposed in 1979, and published in 1981, by Alan Guth.[15][16] His two main motivations for doing so were the flatness problem and the horizon problem, another fine-tuning problem of physical cosmology.

The proposed cause of inflation is a field which permeates space and drives the expansion. The field contains a certain energy density, but unlike the density of the matter or radiation present in the late universe, which decrease over time, the density of the inflationary field remains roughly constant as space expands. Therefore the term

increases extremely rapidly as the scale factor

grows exponentially. Recalling the Friedmann Equation

,
and the fact that the right-hand side of this expression is constant, the term

must therefore decrease with time.

Thus if

initially takes any arbitrary value, a period of inflation can force it down towards 0 and leave it extremely small - around

as required above, for example. Subsequent evolution of the universe will cause the value to grow, bringing it to the currently observed value of around 0.01. Thus the sensitive dependence on the initial value of Ω has been removed: a large and therefore 'unsurprising' starting value need not become massively amplified and lead to a very curved universe with no opportunity to form galaxies and other structures.

This success in solving the flatness problem is considered one of the major motivations for inflationary theory.[3][17]

In other words, it seems to be that the inflationary epoch would naturally adjust any arbitrary omega to the levels we see today.

Now, given the time i've already spent on this reply, perhaps instead of Gish Galloping a bunch of links that are either irrelevant, or flat out contradict your claim, perhaps you could take the time to review your own argument and present a single source you feel best establishes a finely tuned constant of your choosing.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK so that is more support for design in the universe. I think you are confusing tuned with fine tuning. The difference between the odds for a universe that has tuning or certain conditions to produce nebulae and a fine tuned universe for life is significant.

Let's see those odds. I want to see your calculations. Remember, these nebulae have to form with the same elements, they have to absorb and emit at the same wavelengths, and they have to slowly collapse to form stars. Let's see those odds.

There are over 200 physical conditions that need to be right for intelligent life to exist with some not allowing any fudge factor greater than a hairs thickness. Some only allowing life to be in one place which is earth as far as we know it.

Then they aren't "just right". If they were "just right", we would see intelligent life everywhere. We don't.

The conditions for nebulae seem to allow it in many places and to have varying conditions.

Which is what you would expect from a universe finely tuned to produce nebulae.

The fine tuning means you are taking things down to a very precise point and not a common point. The more precise the less common.

That makes zero sense.

Your seeing things from a different view point for what the fine tuning argument states. The green house conditions are tuned to allow not just orchids but many different plants. It also allows other things like bugs, moss, algae, moisture, mist, ect. So you could say the conditions have a fair amount of room to allow for many different things. The conditions dont have to be that specific for orchids alone and the same conditions will allow things like bugs or moss. All these things can go anywhere in the green house and still exist. But say there was a spot where that only supported one thing and that one thing couldn't exist anywhere else. So your missing the point between tuned to exist and fine tuned to exist.

If the conditions in the greenhouse were such that no plant could grow in the greenhouse except for a 4 inch by 4 inch plot, would that greenhouse be finely tuned for plants? The answer is no. A finely tuned greenhouse provides growing space throughout the greenhouse, not in one tiny portion.

AS stated above its the rarity of something that make the odds of it happening a lot less.

What are the odds of a universe where intelligent life can be found in nearly every solar system? Less or more than our universe? Also, show your math.

That makes it harder to produce which means the conditions for it need to be precise or special for it to happen.

In a universe finely tuned for life, life shouldn't be special. It should be everywhere.

In fact as far as Ive read nebulae can come in more than one form and there can be different conditions for making different nebulae.

Precisely what you would find in a universe finely tuned for nebulae.

This gives a broader range for the conditions for nebulae as opposed to the specific conditions needed for life.

Which indicates that the universe was designed for nebulae, not life.

If you applied your example of nebulae to intelligent life then we should see intelligent alien life in different forms around the universe in many places.

. So the conditions for life are fine tuned which means things have to be refined down to a very specific condition for it to happen.

That's the opposite of what it means.

 

[Willis Gravning]

I don’t think they are saying that these constants are so many decimals long in their measurements. They are refining the small variations that will make a difference to the outcomes down to many decimal places. In other words if something was exactly 10 it could be varied by .00000000001 to make it 9.99999999999. It’s the very small variations they are talking about which make the fine tuning.

There are many great scientists who have commented on the fine tuning of the universe and have proposed massive fine tuning of certain constants. Steven Weinberg who is a noted atheists said the following,
He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg’s wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning — The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000,
but instead:
100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001,

there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument


http://www.academia.edu/10290834/An_Introduction_to_the_Cosmic_Design_Argument
http://philpapers.org/rec/COLTTA-3
This is also known as the flatness problem and the critical mass in the cosmic inflation model of the universe
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_accelerating.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

Once again I think they are talking about the tiny difference in how much the constant can vary. As we know all numbers can be broken down into many decimals if need be to show how refined something can be.So when they say if the constant varied by just one in 10/60 parts they mean from its determined measurement of (Gravitational Constant: G=6.673 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-fine-tuning-argument#ixzz3yuyKdNge


http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf

Yes and thats what the fine tuning argument is saying. If the constants were a little different then in some cases the universe and/or life wouldn't come into existence.

I think it is fairly safe to assume that the universe's synthesis of life is not a chance occurrence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think it is fairly safe to assume that the universe's synthesis of life is not a chance occurrence.

What makes it safe to say that?

 

[Willis Gravning]

The lack of evidence.

 

[stevevw]

I think it is fairly safe to assume that the universe's synthesis of life is not a chance occurrence.

Yeah that sort of sums it up. But I like to debate the issue anyway. I will have to come back to the other posts as its getting late and it will take me more time to reply. So your post is a good one to answer. When we look into the heavens most people dont know how to calculate things and to work out whats going on let alone get a satisfactory answer thats going to convince them that there is no God behind things. Calculations and maths dont create anything they just try to explain whats going on in a world view. Thank God that faith isn't based on these things alone. They will look up at the moon so perfectly in place and the stars and planets and see Gods handiwork. As the bible says God is seen in His creation so that we know that what is visible was made by things invisible.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[Loudmouth]

The lack of evidence.

An argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

 

[Loudmouth]

When we look into the heavens most people dont know how to calculate things and to work out whats going on let alone get a satisfactory answer thats going to convince them that there is no God behind things.

What about the calculations that no Leprechauns are behind things, or no Invisible Pink Unicorns, no Spaghetti Monsters, or no Vishnu?

They will look up at the moon so perfectly in place and the stars and planets and see Gods handiwork. As the bible says God is seen in His creation so that we know that what is visible was made by things invisible.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

I will agree that Christians tend to see things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the way you describe it... it is possible and it does happen. The rate of acceleration is not fixed... it is based on the mass of the two objects being attracted. This rate is slower on the moon for example... or even in different places on earth.

To find the rate one used the gravitational constant in the equation. The constant is constant.

But that is the thing you just keep ignoring.
We can imagine a lot of things - many of them "not real". We can 'imagine' a universe where gravity is different. (That does not mean such a universe could exist.)

All other parameters staying the same and gravity's constant being different would not be possible in this universe. The fact that gravity's constant is what is necessary for our universe to exist and for life to exist is real and is a part of a long list of necessary elements that are needed for the universe to exist and for life as we know it to exist as well. You seem to be ignoring the reality that this universe and life in it has a ridiculous small chance of coming all together without a reason which lies outside of it. You seem to be ignoring that something coming from nothing...no space, no energy, no matter, no time, coming into existence with all the order and laws that we now recognize is not possible without something outside of the universe giving rise to it. This plus the life coming into existence from non-life all of which has no evidence whatsoever in our universe. We don't have evidence of something coming from nothing, we have no evidence for life arising from non-living matter or chemistry. We have no evidence for laws and order coming from disorder and chaos.

So you think that this is a sign that these "laws" could indeed be different?

Scientists seem to conclude that there is no reason the parameters in the universe could not be different; the fact that the laws come from this orderly design of the universe when within the universe there is always a cause and effect reality brings more rational conclusions that actual design is the cause.

That what about the laws that cannot be different? Can you - can God! - imagine a triangle with 200° sum of angles?

So if humans cannot break the laws of God... is there a Meta-God whose laws God cannot break?

1. That there is a triangle that has a sum of angles is due to the design of the universe which is mathematical by nature and mathematics something that mankind has discovered and has the ability to comprehend is more reasonable if an intelligent, mathematical mind purposely designing a universe so that created intelligent beings could discover and comprehend them is more logical and rational to me than the opposing view that it just happens to work.

I beg to differ. Humans make sense of the universe and find out about the "laws"... and discover that all the nice, easy mathematical abstractions that make up our "laws" are at best very good approximations.

WE humans just by accident stumble upon a way to describe the universe by a system of mathematics that by its nature has no reasonable explanation in itself, and discover "laws" that we "make up" and are only very good approximations that just so happen to be so mathematically sound as to be accurate and valid enough to hold up to thousands upon thousands of experiments...and you think I keep ignoring things??????

It is an abstraction. We observe, try to get a mathematical relationship from our observations... and if it fits our needs, we keep it.

The fact that the universe can be explained and understood using a mathematical system that is itself unexplained is hardly convincing.

Yes, we agree that we humans don't "make" the "laws" of the universe. But we label stuff, and this labeling is based on our culture, our ideas, our superstitions, our worldview... it is not perfect or written in stone. You know that there once was an old greek guy named Heraklit who imagined that all stuff was made up of distinct very tiny particles that couldn't be divided any further? Indivisible - atomos in greek.

We still have particles called "atoms". We talk about atomic clocks and atomic bombs. But we know that these things can be divided... and we know that the whole idea of indivisible particles is basically bunk. Still the name stuck.
It is not different for "Laws of Nature". There was the concept of "given laws". It didn't hold up, but the name stuck.

How did it not hold up?

That would be fiction. I can imagine a lot of things. I can talk about even a lot more things. But as we have already agreed on: humans do not create reality. Not by imagining... not by "creation".

WE don't create the laws, they exist and would exist whether or not we were here to describe them or not.

So yes, the ball has to fall down because it is a physical object. Mass is an attribute of that ball, just like "it's round" is an attribute.


Yes, an idea is not a "physical" thing. But it is an object... a different object.

How "we" can do anything with ideas and concepts and such? Accept that they are abstractions. "The rose is to a human being only that which the mind can conceive."... I agree. It is not the rose itself... it is a representation of the object, and, important!, a lesser representation.
So it is the way with anything "the mind can experience". "God's ideas of the universe" are no exception.

Even if it is a representation of the idea of God's universe, it would still be God's universe.

The object is a concept of the mind? Excuse me... didn't we agree that reality is NOT based on the human mind?


No. Fridge makes cold. Cold is order. Heat is chaos. "Nature's way" is equalizing temperatures, not separation into hot and cold. So how the heck does a fridge work? Magic???


Statements like "the way of nature is order to chaos". What do you mean by that?


Laws are rules that set goals for behaviour. Rules can be broken.

We've already determined that the laws of nature can't be broken. They are rules that do not change.

Attributes are something that cannot be broken. It is something that is.

Shouldn't that be a sign that "natural laws" are attributes of objects, rather that rules that are given to them to follow?

Attributes include beauty...not all agree on what is beautiful. Red is an attribute but no one knows if we see red in the same way someone else does. However, the laws are the same no matter who or how someone see them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It was the author, Douglas Adams, who explained it so simply that even a Ch... child should be able to understand it. He gave the example of a puddle that marveled how closely the depression it sat in was designed for it.
Life occurs on a very tiny mote, in a universe vast beyond comprehension, for a very short time, in a universe of unimaginable age, under conditions so rare they might occur only on one planet in hundreds of trillions. And religious folks seriously think the universe is all about them. It's a good thing that they are so humble, or they might get above themselves.

You are correct, it is explained so simply that even a child should be able to understand it. However, it is so simple that only one uneducated or unaware of the complexity of the issue would be convinced by the analogy. A puddle hardly holds the intelligence of human beings or the knowledge we hold about the universe and the hole is so incredibly ill-suited in comparison with a vast universe that has over 30 unique and necessary parameters needed for life to exist on earth as we know it that it is clearly silly to compare the two.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I said before, we don't know how many other possible configurations of life there are. We see our configuration in our universe, but do not know what life might be possible if or universe were different. Likewise, Adams puddle might not know that other shapes and depths of puddles are possible.

What it really boils down to its even if there is fine tuning, we have no reason to suppose the universe is timed to life rather than life running to the universe.

What you have neglected to note is how life itself is no easy matter. There is no reason to suppose that life comes from non-life. It is simple to ascertain how a puddle came into existence, life not so much.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think it is fairly safe to assume that the universe's synthesis of life is not a chance occurrence.

Are you familiar with the Drake equation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you familiar with the Drake equation?

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2007/05/drake-equation-is-obsolete.html