Again, what is "required" is very well documented for the universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist. It is a scientific claim, not mine.
Upvote
0
The fine tuning of the universe.
- Thread starter Oncedeceived
- Start date
Yes, THEY ARE! Provide any documentation that claims that if the values were not precisely what they are that the universe would still exist and so would intelligent life.
Upvote
0
Please make an effort to recognize that fine tuning is a scientific phenomena ok. A scientific phenomena. Now my argument that theism is a better explanation is separate from the evidence of fine tuning. Please try to see the difference.
Upvote
0
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf
It is not true that fine-tuning must eventually yield to the relentless march of science. Finetuning is not a typical scientific problem, that is, a phenomenon in our universe that cannot be explained by our current understanding of physical laws. It is not a gap. Rather, we are concerned with the physical laws themselves. In particular, the anthropic coincidences are not like, say, the coincidence between inertial mass and gravitational mass in Newtonian gravity, which is a coincidence between two seemingly independent physical quantities. Anthropic coincidences, on the other hand, involve a happy consonance between a physical quantity and the requirements of complex, embodied intelligent life. The anthropic coincidences are so arresting because we are accustomed to thinking of physical laws and initial conditions as being unconcerned with how things turn out. Physical laws are material and efficient causes, not final causes. There is, then, no reason to think that future progress in physics will render a life-permitting universe inevitable. When physics is finished, when the equation is written on the blackboard and fundamental physics has gone as deep as it can go, fine-tuning may remain, basic and irreducible.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
I wonder if you did...
Actually, what we know is that the universe didn't exist as we know it. We still haven't ruled out that the universe didn't merely change form.
But okay.
Well...obviously, yes. These things are properties of the universe. Off course when X comes into existence, its properties also come into existence. You kinda can't have one without the other........
But you aren't making claims about the mere existence of things... you are making claims about how and why the things came into existence. There's a difference.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
And that surprises you? You expected values that would make it impossible for life and the universe to exist?
"design" is not a pattern?
Remember... you aren't just claiming that the values exist. You are making claims about HOW and WHY the values exist.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
The only thing this quote supports, is the fact that your god argument is nothing but an argument from ignorance.
The sad part is, that you don't realise it.
Read that last part out loud a couple of times:
life as we know it would not exist
Upvote
0
I did.
There was no form to change from. There was no space (needed to change form), no energy (needed to change form) no matter (no quantum nothing to change form) and no time (needed to change form). Nothing of the natural universe existed...nothing and then it did.
So it doesn't matter its origins...which was my point. What we need to know to determine the fine tuning is this universe and this life.
There are two ways the universe came into existence:
1. God created it.
2. It came about by an unknown natural cause.
We don't know for certain which is the cause. So we need to determine from what we know (fine tuning) which cause is the best explanation.
We decide which one is the best explanation. I say it is better explained by theism. You say it is better explained by naturalism.
Upvote
0
Interestingly enough, a life permitting universe according to scientists is rather surprising considering that life seems to be rare not only in our own universe but in a great vast number of possible universes.
Is car car design a pattern? Is a factory a pattern? You may say they are but they are not "patterns" in the way you were claiming.
I am not making claims about the fine tuning other than what the scientists are claiming about the fine tuning. I am claiming that those values that exist, make a better argument for theism than for naturalism.
Upvote
0
I don't see it that way because it isn't an argument from ignorance:
(did you miss this?)
It is not true that fine-tuning must eventually yield to the relentless march of science. Finetuning is not a typical scientific problem, that is, a phenomenon in our universe that cannot be explained by our current understanding of physical laws. It is not a gap. Rather, we are concerned with the physical laws themselves. In particular, the anthropic coincidences are not like, say, the coincidence between inertial mass and gravitational mass in Newtonian gravity, which is a coincidence between two seemingly independent physical quantities.
AS we know it is the argument. However, using computer modeling life in vast numbers of possible universes is very very rare and intelligent life vastly more rare. Saying that, one would need to provide evidence for other universes as well as other life forms in them to claim other life forms even exist. We KNOW of only one universe and only carbon based life so to claim possible universes with possible life really isn't an argument that can be supported anymore than God and even if true would not eliminate the fine tuning it would just push it back to the original or universe generator which would need to be fine tuned to allow for our fine tuning.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Why is that interesting?
I can only repeat my question.....
Did you expect that this universe would be such that it would not be able to exist, or be such that life couldn't exist?
Or did you rather expect a universe in which you could actually exist, in which you could actually observe these constants?
Apparantly, you aren't aware that we can find patterns in just about anything.
We have just spend 90 pages explaining to you that that is in fact exactly what you do.
To bad it's a fallacious argument with unsupported premises.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Indeed. Hindsight fallacious nonsense, with some argumentum ad ignorantiam sauce on top of it.
It's also extremely speculative, as it isn't even known if the constants can actually have a different value then the one they have in this universe.
Indeed. But apparantly, that doesn't stop you from making claims about what other forms a universe could potentially have.
Awesome. So your god argument can't be supported. Exactly.
End thread?
"I want my cake and eat it too!!!"
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
You don't know that.
You don't know that either.
We know nothing about the the state of T = 0, as our models of physics break down at Planck time, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction ........ of a fraction of a second after T = 0. So the very very first moment we can "turn back time" to using math - the universe exists. Space exists. Energy exists. Time exists. Constants exist.
Again, you don't know that.
Sure, it sounds logical - to me as well. But if there's one thing that is actually known about that state, is that it does not (necessarily) comply to our understanding of "logical".
It matters, once you start making claims about it.
Well, at least if you care about those claims being reflective of reality.
That only tells us what the values of the constants are. Not how they are determined. Not if they could have been different. It only tells us what they are and nothing else.
As I and others here have been telling your for +90 pages.
You fail at imagination and you win at presenting false dichotomies.
3. it was created last thursday by extra-dimensional aliens
4. produced by high school multi-verse fairies as a science project
5. there is no universe, only the matrix, which exists in an infinite void
6. the great Cthulu laid a cosmic egg
7. there is only this universe in an eternal big bang - big crunch cycle
8. ......................................................
Actually we don't know at all what is the cause. In fact, we don't even know if the word "cause" is a sensible word to use for this...
And we need a way to verify and test the proposed explanation.
No. I say nothing. I say "we don't know".
You.... you just make an assertion inspired by your a priori religious belief.
Upvote
0
We are here, so yes we are in a universe that allows for intelligent life but the reason it does is what is surprising.
And some are trivial and other are not. Fine tuning is not trivial.
Actually all you all have done is spent 90 pages confusing evidence and conclusions.
Except that all this talk about fallacious argumentation is on your side. If you deny fine tuning for intelligent life you are denying scientific documentation that shows the fine tuning is real so that is fallacious on your part. If you claim I have unsupported premises then you deny that fine tuning is evidence of a fine tuner but that is fallacious because you have no evidence that prohibits the fine tuning being the result of a fine tuner.
Upvote
0
You are claiming the fine tuning for intelligent life, a scientific claim is fallacious nonsense and ignorant? Tsk Tsk. Provide documentation that fine tuning for intelligent life is fallacious nonsense and ignorance.
Unless you can show 1. That they couldn't be different and 2. That it would eliminate fine tuning even if they couldn't, fine tuning is not eliminated.
First of all, you were the one that asserted that we don't know if other universes exist nor whether or not carbon based life is the only life that exists. So that is your assertion and one that is not in evidence whatsoever, but for the scientists that have used computer programs that can hypothesize trillions of them, they still show life being extremely vastly rare in those trillions of those hypothesized universes.
You are right I shouldn't have said supported I should have said testable and verifiable.
I've seen nothing that refutes God as the best explanation for fine tuning.
Its simply true. Multiverse just pushes the fine tuning back to the universe generator.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Yes I do, because that is what physicists tell us. Nothing and then the universe.
Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point. (Emphasis mine)
Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.
http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html
Nope, see above.
See above, my claims are based on science.
And unless you can show that they couldn't be different and how that would eliminate fine tuning and why we need to know how they are determined to understand how they work you have nothing.
This is not a gap in knowledge which I've shown by a expert in the field saying it is not. You are denying what is know by science to dismiss the argument because I am claiming that theism explains it all better.
Which is impossible for all explanations so we have to determine what best explains it.
Yet, if we don't know you don't know that a fine tuner is not necessary or the best explanation. You are asserting with your a priori anti-religious belief.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
