To find the rate one used the gravitational constant in the equation. The constant is constant.
Yes, that is correct. But that is not what you said before, and what I responded to in my post.
"Does an object free falling fall at the rate of acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s as we observe or without this law would it free fall at a rate of acceleration of 10.7 m/s/s and then sometimes 5.5 m/s/s and then sometimes 20.5 m/s/s? We can imagine a universe that this might be possible. Why is it not possible?"
I try to give you a lot of leeway with such statements, but I cannot read you mind. I can only respond to what you tell me.
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.
I really don't know how I can make you see the problem with your reasoning here.
Yes, what you say is basically correct: our universe would not be "our" universe if it were different. When we - hypothetically - start to play around with different physical constants, we most often arrive at a universe that doesn't contain anything of what we like to see as "basic" and we need to exist.
BUT! All this reasoning depends on all these laws of nature existing, unchallenged and unchallengable. This view basically has your God saying: "This is the way I must create a universe. The laws of nature demand it this way, and no other would work."
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.
First, we don't know that. Without any knowledge of "what lies outside", there is no way to determine a chance.
Second, this still doesn't get rid of the problem that it assumes that this "inside" is
based on the rules that exist "inside". When you don't have these rules, there is no need to assume that the existence of this "inside" universe is unlikely.
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.
I would tentatively agree with you here... but you might have noticed that I don't argue for that position.
So I find it a little harsh that you would tell me i am "ignoring" something here.
This plus the life coming into existence from non-life all of which has no evidence whatsoever in our universe.
According to some creationists, the existence of the universe is evidence that God created it. If that reasoning is valid, it is as valid to conclude that life comes from non-life, because life exists. I do not accept both versions as valid.
But there is a reasoning that is equally valid as what you posted here: there is no evidence whatsoever in our universe for a deity creating life.
We don't have evidence of something coming from nothing...
Because we don't have "nothing".
... we have no evidence for life arising from non-living matter or chemistry.
That is false. There is evidence. Just not for the "man from mud" that creationists demand.
We have no evidence for laws and order coming from disorder and chaos.
That is definitly false and is mathematically proven.
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.
But we are not talking about something "within the universe". We - at least you - are talking about an eternal, non-material, "spiritual", omnipotent? deity from "beyond".
Can't you see the flaw in the reasoning? You assume a "cause" and "design", because our universe
needs causes and designs to work internally.
But if you conclude that the need to exist externally, because you need them internally... why don't you conclude the same need for your external existence?
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.
"Mathematical by nature"... what does that even mean? How did the "intelligent mind purposely designing a universe" get "mathematical"? Did it discover mathematics? Or did it "decree" it?
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??????
The fact that the universe can be explained and understood using a mathematical system that is itself unexplained is hardly convincing.
Stochastics. Order from randomness. Great numbers.
The universe doesn't work the way humans think it works. But mathematics does... because humans invented it. And mathematics gives us a rather good way to approximate the way the universe works... and it comes down to "very good approximations" and stochastics.
Because of this discussion that we are participating in right here.
WE don't create the laws, they exist and would exist whether or not we were here to describe them or not.
Yes. I said that.
By your bolding I assume that you say that "we" didn't... but someone else did. That is the assertion that you need to defend, not the question of whether the "laws" would exist without us to describe them.
But on the other hand: no, the "laws" would not exist without us to describe them. Because the "laws" are human approximations of observed conditions, not "rules given by a ruler".
Even if it is a representation of the idea of God's universe, it would still be God's universe.
I have no idea what you mean here.
We've already determined that the laws of nature can't be broken. They are rules that do not change.
Even laws that do not change can be broken.
And I see that you - again - chose to evade my question about the fridge. As well as my direct question: "
Statements like "the way of nature is order to chaos". What do you mean by that?"
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.
Beauty is not an attribute. It is a human evaluation. "Red" on the other hand is an attribute. Yet it doesn't matter if someone "sees red in the same way". "Red" is not defined by how humans see it.
