A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Some of the evidence that supports my certainty that God produced and sustains the universe is that it is finely tuned all over to allow even the existence of atomic matter, let alone life and consciousness. If one of the fundamental constants (the weak atomic force for example) was off by a scale of a hair, molecular existence would not form at all.


What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos


Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.3

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - The Nature of Reality

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.


Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."




When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe

Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:


"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

DNA is is grammatically coherent.



Study: Grammars of human languages reflect inherent rules of DNA | Exopermaculture

Study: Grammars of human languages reflect inherent rules of DNA


Russian researchers’ findings and conclusions are simply revolutionary! According to them, our DNA is not only responsible for the construction of our body but also serves as data storage and in communication. The Russian linguists found that the genetic code, especially in the apparently useless junk DNA follows the same rules as all our human languages. To this end they compared the rules of syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar. They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages. So human languages did not appear coincidentally but are a reflection of our inherent DNA.

The Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr Garjajev and his colleagues also explored the vibrational behavior of the DNA. The bottom line was: “Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation.” This means that they managed for example to modulate certain frequency patterns onto a laser ray and with it influenced the DNA frequency and thus the genetic information itself. Since the basic structure of DNA-alkaline pairs and of language (as explained earlier) are of the same structure, no DNA decoding is necessary.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are many objections to this conjecture, some of which may be found here:

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "fine-tuned" argument for God seems to be based largely on wishful thinking. Yes, our universe can produce life. After all, we are here to ask these questions. That doesn't mean that the universe exists as it does for our benefit.

We don't know just how variable or durable or widespread physical constants are. If the sort of space capable of creating atoms is relatively stable, that may explain why there would be enough time for life to evolve and for us to exist. If physical constants can differ in different regions of physical existence, then there would be even more variation.

This isn't much more than a God of the Gaps style argument. Basically, it amounts to: "you don't have a scientific explanation for the 'fine-tuning', therefore God." It's not much of an argument. It's more of an invitation for theistic imagination.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

There are many objections to this conjecture, some of which may be found here:

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "fine-tuned" argument for God seems to be based largely on wishful thinking. Yes, our universe can produce life. After all, we are here to ask these questions. That doesn't mean that the universe exists as it does for our benefit.

We don't know just how variable or durable or widespread physical constants are. If the sort of space capable of creating atoms is relatively stable, that may explain why there would be enough time for life to evolve and for us to exist. If physical constants can differ in different regions of physical existence, then there would be even more variation.

This isn't much more than a God of the Gaps style argument. Basically, it amounts to: "you don't have a scientific explanation for the 'fine-tuning', therefore God." It's not much of an argument. It's more of an invitation for theistic imagination.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I do have a specific scientific argument explaining fine tuning for atomic stability and life, not only for this universe but for all the infinite universes in the metaverse, based on a real, infinite, eternal, living God. I'm getting to it.

You seem to be arguing "science of the gaps": example : We don't know just how variable or durable or widespread physical constants are. If the sort of space capable of creating atoms is relatively stable, that may explain why there would be enough time for life to evolve and for us to exist. If physical constants can differ in different regions of physical existence, then there would be even more variation.


From everything we experience and can observe out to 16 billion light years, atoms can form. If one of the constant was changed by a hair, atoms would not. If the gravitational constant of the mass theorized to exist as the singularity was off by an unimaginable small margin, the universe would either fly apart or have crunched back together long ago. This has to be in perfect balance with the dark energy constant of expansion or else nothing lasts.

Do you know what the dark energy constant is?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You seem to be arguing "science of the gaps":

No, sorry. I'm not making such an argument. And please do keep in mind that the fine-tuning argument for God assumes that the constants could be naturally different than what they are.

I'm saying only that the fine-tuning apologetic fails. We don't know enough to say with certainty how cosmological constants may vary over time or space, so nothing can be be said with certainty about how likely or unlikely, or how natural or artificial, our beneficial constants may be. Admitting that science does not have all of the answers isn't a "gap" style argument.

From everything we experience and can observe out to 16 billion light years, atoms can form. If one of the constant was changed by a hair, atoms would not.

Let's say that is true. So what? Nothing can be reliably concluded from that observation.

All we know is that atoms exist in our universe. We don't even know if it could or couldn't have been otherwise. There may be naturalistic reasons for the value of the constant that have nothing to do with us. We just don't know. Any speculation is premature.

Do you know what the dark energy constant is?

Yes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Delphiki]

Here we are on a blue spec floating in a vast sea, which we can see billions of light years in any direction that we are surrounded by lethal amounts of radiation, at temperatures that will instantly freeze any element floating about it. We're on a planet orbiting a sun that will eventually grow to envelop the earth's orbit and beyond... an earth which so far, has only been around for a small fraction of the existence of the universe as we know it. And once our sun finally dies, Andromeda, our sister galaxy, will collide with our galaxy, throwing stars into chaos, and bending the orbits of worlds that may have belonged to them as well. All of this will happen billions of years after you die in a mere 60-80 years... Comparatively, you weren't even here for a blink of an eye. Comparatively, all of humanity wasn't even here for a blink of an eye.

The universe is NOT fine tuned for life or our existence. When you begin to understand the magnitude of the universe, you begin to discover that we're merely "allowed" to exist on this tiny little blue spec for a really short amount of time in a hostile, violent, dangerous, and inherently deadly universe which, if it's designed in anyway regarding human life, it is to extinguish it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Here we are on a blue spec floating in a vast sea, which we can see billions of light years in any direction that we are surrounded by lethal amounts of radiation, at temperatures that will instantly freeze any element floating about it. We're on a planet orbiting a sun that will eventually grow to envelop the earth's orbit and beyond... an earth which so far, has only been around for a small fraction of the existence of the universe as we know it. And once our sun finally dies, Andromeda, our sister galaxy, will collide with our galaxy, throwing stars into chaos, and bending the orbits of worlds that may have belonged to them as well. All of this will happen billions of years after you die in a mere 60-80 years... Comparatively, you weren't even here for a blink of an eye. Comparatively, all of humanity wasn't even here for a blink of an eye.

The universe is NOT fine tuned for life or our existence. When you begin to understand the magnitude of the universe, you begin to discover that we're merely "allowed" to exist on this tiny little blue spec for a really short amount of time in a hostile, violent, dangerous, and inherently deadly universe which, if it's designed in anyway regarding human life, it is to extinguish it.

 

[keith99]

A robustly created Universe points to a God.

Oops, the cat is out of the bag, whatever the conditions of life were Theists would claim they point to the existence of God.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

No, sorry. I'm not making such an argument. And please do keep in mind that the fine-tuning argument for God assumes that the constants could be naturally different than what they are.

I'm saying only that the fine-tuning apologetic fails. We don't know enough to say with certainty how cosmological constants may vary over time or space, so nothing can be be said with certainty about how likely or unlikely, or how natural or artificial, our beneficial constants may be. Admitting that science does not have all of the answers isn't a "gap" style argument.


Let's say that is true. So what? Nothing can be reliably concluded from that observation.

All we know is that atoms exist in our universe. We don't even know if it could or couldn't have been otherwise. There may be naturalistic reasons for the value of the constant that have nothing to do with us. We just don't know. Any speculation is premature.



Yes.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Science gap style argument: "There could be another universe where what you say is not true therefor argument invalidated." All the "it may be different way over there" or "other pieces of space time might not allow for atoms" etc....all unfasifiable.

There are natural reason for the constants, it not about "us" it's just plain biological. Giving reason and rhyme to all subsequent internal life forms across the board.

Good! Are you also familiar with the dark matter ratio, string theory, DNA anatomy, and basic musical relationships?

 

[Split Rock]

Some of the evidence that supports my certainty that God produced and sustains the universe is that it is finely tuned all over to allow even the existence of atomic matter, let alone life and consciousness. If one of the fundamental constants (the weak atomic force for example) was off by a scale of a hair, molecular existence would not form at all.


What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos


Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.3

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - The Nature of Reality

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.


Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."




When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe

Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:


"A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

What if there were many universes and not just ours? Maybe ours is just one of the few that can support life.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Split Rock]

Science gap style argument: "There could be another universe where what you say is not true therefor argument invalidated." All the "it may be different way over there" or "other pieces of space time might not allow for atoms" etc....all unfasifiable.

The fine-tuning argument only works if there is only one universe. We have no way of knowing if there are more. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Loudmouth]

You might as well argue that every lottery drawing has to be fine tuned so that a specific person/s wins.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Here we are on a blue spec floating in a vast sea, which we can see billions of light years in any direction that we are surrounded by lethal amounts of radiation, at temperatures that will instantly freeze any element floating about it. We're on a planet orbiting a sun that will eventually grow to envelop the earth's orbit and beyond... an earth which so far, has only been around for a small fraction of the existence of the universe as we know it. And once our sun finally dies, Andromeda, our sister galaxy, will collide with our galaxy, throwing stars into chaos, and bending the orbits of worlds that may have belonged to them as well. All of this will happen billions of years after you die in a mere 60-80 years... Comparatively, you weren't even here for a blink of an eye. Comparatively, all of humanity wasn't even here for a blink of an eye.

The universe is NOT fine tuned for life or our existence. When you begin to understand the magnitude of the universe, you begin to discover that we're merely "allowed" to exist on this tiny little blue spec for a really short amount of time in a hostile, violent, dangerous, and inherently deadly universe which, if it's designed in anyway regarding human life, it is to extinguish it.

Space is not cold. You will not "freeze" being ejected out of the ISS. There are too few atoms to conduct heat. The main problem astronauts have is over-heating because there is nothing to take it away!

Yes there is lethal radiation out there. Know what does? It creates small organic molecule in nebular clouds saturated with the stuff of Life: Nebular Clouds --The 'Engines' of Life in the Universe?

Nebular clouds are thought to be most likely environment for synthesizing and promoting the evolution of molecules needed for the origin of life. Giant gas nebulae such as Orion are storehouses of sugars that form ribose -- the backbone of RNA. With a universe full of sugar, it's possible that early RNA worlds were generated and are evolving in their own unique ways throughout the observable universe. RNA coding is what gave primitive cell structures the catalyst they needed to become life.

The building blocks for DNA could have been generated or combined within interstellar clouds and DNA would become part of the molecular-protein-amino acid complex. Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, calcium, sulfur, nitrogen and phosphorus for example are continually irradiated by ions, which can generate small organic molecules which evolve into larger complex organic molecules that result in the formation of amino acids and other compounds.

Phosphorus, for example, is rare in our solar system and may have been non-existent on the early Earth; phosphorus is essential for the manufacture of DNA.

Polarized radiation in the nebula cloud leads to the formation of proteins, nucleobases and then DNA. The combination of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, cyanide and several other elements, could create adenine, which is a DNA base, whereas oxygen and phosphorus could ladder DNA base pairs. Glycine has also been identified in the interstellar clouds.



Nebular clouds are life factories.


And if that is true, we are certainly not the only humanity in the universe.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

What if there were many universes and not just ours? Maybe ours is just one of the few that can support life.

Scientists like throwing dice?


What if I could show you a metaversal model where each and every single one of the infinite and growing number of universes are finely tuned or life to appear. They are all fine tuned by extremely specific geometric reasons that predict the dark energy constant and the dark matter ratio, right on the money.

Would that be more preferable to a scientist?

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists like throwing dice?


What if I could show you a metaversal model where each and every single one of the infinite and growing number of universes are finely tuned or life to appear. They are all fine tuned by extremely specific geometric reasons that predict the dark energy constant and the dark matter ratio, right on the money.

Would that be more preferable to a scientist?

I can show you that everytime I mix oil and water, the oil ends up on top. Does this require a deity?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Science gap style argument: "There could be another universe where what you say is not true therefor argument invalidated." All the "it may be different way over there" or "other pieces of space time might not allow for atoms" etc....all unfasifiable.

Even if I were making a science gap argument (which I'm not), that wouldn't save the fine-tuning argument for God, because it would suffer from a similar problem. Both arguments of that sort would go spiraling down in flames. You can't hold onto your argument without allowing for "science gap" arguments to hold as well.

Fine-tuning arguments aren't falsifiable. The physical constants may be known, but not the conclusion that God must be the cause if scientists can't offer some alternative explanation.

Are you also familiar with the dark matter ratio, string theory, DNA anatomy, and basic musical relationships?

Familiar in a layman's sense, sure. I'm not too sure what you mean by "basic musical relationships" though.

And I'm not convinced by what I know of string theory, incidentally. I find loop quantum gravity more convincing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Split Rock]

Scientists like throwing dice?


What if I could show you a metaversal model where each and every single one of the infinite and growing number of universes are finely tuned or life to appear. They are all fine tuned by extremely specific geometric reasons that predict the dark energy constant and the dark matter ratio, right on the money.

Would that be more preferable to a scientist?

What would your model be based on? Models are only as good as the data plugged into them. Another way of saying this is: "garbage in... garbage out."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can show you that everytime I mix oil and water, the oil ends up on top. Does this require a deity?

Yes, that is the god Cralider, he is usually found near salad bars.

 

[Strathos]

.I'm saying only that the fine-tuning apologetic fails. We don't know enough to say with certainty how cosmological constants may vary over time or space, so nothing can be be said with certainty about how likely or unlikely, or how natural or artificial, our beneficial constants may be. Admitting that science does not have all of the answers isn't a "gap" style argument.

Isn't this the same kind of argument from ignorance that dad uses to justify his "past state" nonsense?