Where did the laws of nature come from?

[HitchSlap]

Let me clarify...where is your reasonable argument?

For what?

 

[Oncedeceived]

For what?

You claimed that all arguments made for Christianity are unreasonable, yet you have neglected to make any reasonable argument to support that claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

You claimed that all arguments made for Christianity are unreasonable, yet you have neglected to make any reasonable argument to support that claim.

I did?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I did?

Yes, I dislike unreasonable explanations.

Such as?

That is very true. However, you said that you dislike unreasonable explanations...which would those be then?

All of them.

Yep, I'm dismissing all unreasonable arguments as being unreasonable.

Considering you are unwilling to present these "unreasonable" arguments, it doesn't make a very good argument from your position.

I try to avoid making unreasonable arguments altogether.

Just to refresh your memory.

 

[stevevw]

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

I have only posted what the scientists have said about the cosmological constant. Most have said it is the hardest of all the constants to explain. There have been some ideas through quantum physics to address the cosmological constant problem such as through string theory and multiverses. But these are theoretical ideas that haven't been proven and bring up other problems that need to be addressed. The point is its the scientists who are making these calculations. As far as I can understand it they can calculate the values of the vacuum energy ie dark energy (cosmological constant) to within a close range. They know it has to be above zero and very small.

It seems the link I posted had these calculations but I could not completely understand them as I am not a physicists. But other sites have similar calculations so I would assume they are what many have come up with and are the common knowledge. The other point is that many mainstream scientists such as Steven Weinberg, Brian Green, Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist), Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawkins, Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) and many more. They each have stated that the universe looks fine tuned for life. Some have singled out the cosmological constant as a major fine tuning that is hard to explain.

I wont re-post any links as you said you didn't want a bunch of them. I will post 1 or 2 at the end of this post. One of which I had already posted but you must have not seen it which deals with the cosmological constants calculations and some of the other fine tuning constants that have been brought up..

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.

Then why do many scientists keep quoting this magnitude of 10/120. It seems to be the value they have put on dark energy so that this can explain how the universes kept in balance as well as expanding faster all the time. It was the value needed when the big bang started so that it didn't cause the universe to collapse in on itself or keep expanding until there was nothing. Anyway the link I will post shows the calculations for you to look at.

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

OK well I cant remember linking a video so maybe I posted something else that I didn't intend to. But I think if its associated with the paper the the PDF link was the one I posted below that link. The PDF on the link itself wasn't there or I couldn't get into it so I included another site with the PDF. I included the first link to show it came from a good journal source as the PDF link had no source fro what journal it was or where it came from.

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:

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 sourceNot 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

You only have to read a certain section. I did read the relevant parts of the paper that referred to what we were debating. Thought the paper covers the fine tuning argument I brushed over most of the other parts as it was a very long and complicated journal of around 80 pages. But the relevant parts from item number 2 (evidence of fine tuning) on page 10 to about page 26 should cover what we are talking about. The paper tries to support fine tuning scientifically so it goes into some detail and if your not a scientists like me then its a bit much. It has a lot of calculations for the cosmological constant which was pretty hard to get my head around. It brings up possible objections and explains how these do not hold water as far as the fine tuning is concerned.

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

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:

Yeah sorry about that. I included a few different ones as I thought it would cover different aspects. The wiki one was mainly because it wasn't religious and a common one that people use and is accepted. But it really didn't say much in detail. The best one was actually the one you didn't read, the 80 page paper. But you only have to read a small section which I pointed out above.[/quote]
http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Collins-The-Teleological-Argument.pdf

 

[stevevw]

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.

The problem is the fine tuning argument shows us that there are some set parameters for how things has been setup for life and even the universe itself. But this is only part of a bigger picture of design in nature. As we look into things more and more such as with genetics and physics and especially quantum physics now we begin to see a world that science is not able to have the answers for. Its not so much that these answers may come. Its that the type of evidence we see isn't in the scientific realm to deal with.

Even the scientists are appealing to far fetched ideas to explain what they see because no logical cause and effect explanation is going to fit. The same with our genetics. Evolution is finding it harder to explain how things came about as we discover more function in our DNA and more complexity in living things. Design can be argued as real in nature and some are now showing some good evidence for this. But part of this is to show how nature itself cant be responsible for creating everything. What some do is use nature itself with its amazing ability to create and design and say that this is the great power we see that is creating things. But all they are doing is using the created to be the creator. Something had to bring about the laws, codes and languages that nature uses.


[/QUOTE]

 

[durangodawood]

....There is no reason to suppose that life comes from non-life.....

You dont need reasons to suppose.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just to refresh your memory.

Bye Felicia.

 

[Loudmouth]

As I said we can use our minds as well to apply some reason to things. God doesn't ask us to go and blindly believe everything and anything without good cause.

You have yet to present evidence that God even exists.

Of course a disbeliever will think thats just another fairy tale. But the point is to the person who trusts in God it is real and this is part of their evidence to deferential between Pink Unicorns or Vishnu.

Belief is not evidence. Never has been. Believing in something really, really hard does not turn it into a fact.

But the other thing is people use examples of things like Spaghetti Monsters without any foundation. Its a poor example and one that has become a cliche rather than proving that belief cant tell the difference between one kind of god or myth and another. Its quite obvious that the God of the bible and a Spaghetti Monsters are different. The God of the bible tells us He is the creator of that universe we are talking about and the spaghetti Monster tells us nothing. The God of the bible is followed by millions and millions of people and the spaghetti Monster has nothing.

So we can use reason and deduction here and see that there are some supports for why someone would believe in God and find the qualities for a creator in Him rather than a spaghetti Monster. We can make a case for God scientifically through the design of things in nature. It may not be the God of the Bible but it certainly wont be the spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorns or Vishnu for that matter.Using things like the spaghetti Monster as an example of showing that people who believe in God being the creator of the universe is a logical fallacy.

When all else fails revert to ridicule.

The whole point is that there are no calculations for the things you are trying to claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

I respectfully disagree. The first clause is correct. 'I don't have enough faith to believe all this arose from chance,'. That is only a statement of a lack of belief. But I did not say, '...therefore God.' So I did not commit the logical fallacy which you mentioned. I'm just stealing a page from the atheist playbook.

But you doubt that chance alone can do it because of your positive belief that God did it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is the fine tuning argument shows us that there are some set parameters for how things has been setup for life and even the universe itself.

How did you determine that they were set up for life and not something else? If you find mold in your refrigerator, does that mean you designed your refrigerator to grow mold?

As we look into things more and more such as with genetics and physics and especially quantum physics now we begin to see a world that science is not able to have the answers for.

First, that is an argument from ignorance.

Second, you ignore the answers that we do have.

Its not so much that these answers may come. Its that the type of evidence we see isn't in the scientific realm to deal with.

That's like saying that science can't deal with the Leprechaun realm. You actually have to demonstrate that certain things exist before you can claim that science can't deal with them.

Even the scientists are appealing to far fetched ideas to explain what they see because no logical cause and effect explanation is going to fit. The same with our genetics. Evolution is finding it harder to explain how things came about as we discover more function in our DNA and more complexity in living things.

Again, something you have invented from whole cloth.

Design can be argued as real in nature and some are now showing some good evidence for this.

What evidence?

But part of this is to show how nature itself cant be responsible for creating everything.

Argument from ignorance.

But all they are doing is using the created to be the creator. Something had to bring about the laws, codes and languages that nature uses.

[/QUOTE]

Bare assertion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You dont need reasons to suppose.

Really? Anything goes in suppose?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bye Felicia.

Why doesn't that surprise me...

 

[durangodawood]

Really? Anything goes in suppose?

I suppose so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I suppose so.

 

[Willis Gravning]

But you doubt that chance alone can do it because of your positive belief that God did it.

I didn't say that.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't say that.

Is it true?

 

[KCfromNC]

If the universe we live in could not produce life, it would kind of undercut the fine tuning argument, no?

I don't know. If the universe we lived in couldn't naturally produce life, that would be pretty good evidence for the supernatural meddling. Not fine tuning per se, but it would get to the same place the fine tuning argument wishes it could.

Unfortunately all we see here is natural processes doing their thing, no gods or magic needed, which doesn't tell us much of anything one way or the other.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem is the fine tuning argument shows us that there are some set parameters for how things has been setup for life and even the universe itself.

The other problem is that no one knows if they could have been any different, or if they could have, how unlikely it is that they take on values conducive to life. So basically anyone trying to conclude anything here is just guessing.

 

[Willis Gravning]

Is it true?

Belief is a strong word because it leaves little room for doubt and is difficult to defend. No one knows with certainty why the universe is the way it is. The universe is certainly a wonder.
I have ideas but wouldn't classify them as a beliefs because I know they may not be correct.
Skeptics have a big advantage in debates like this because they don't really have to bring any ideas to the table. They can just throw stones at ideas others present then retreat to 'lack of belief' such as I just did.
So I will make an offer. I will tell you what I think is correct if you will do the same. Criticism of my idea is not an idea, neither is 'I don't know'. What do you think is the ultimate truth of the universe and life within it? You don't have to believe or know with certainty. A best guess will do.