A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[JimFit]

Jimfit's "answer" here verbatim stolen from

Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

What a funny kind of Christian you are JimFit, one who believes wholeheartedly in presenting other people's words as if a) you understand them b) you actually wrote them yourself. What does your Bible have to say on that subject, for example, Exodus 20 verse 15, Jeremiah 23 verse 30? What a funny kind of debate, one person (richardparker) honestly bringing up points and another (you) simply googling and copy-pasting the most apparently relevant text, but lacking the knowledge, you can't even judge relevance accurately...

The distinction here is in the definition of "random", by the way, which your answer fails to grasp because it was given by someone else to somebody else's (different) question...

After your failure to show me that the cosmological constant is not a constant you now reply with cheap responses. First reply to this then we can talk.

In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life | Letters to Nature

 

[mzungu]

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.

Indeed

 

[RichardParker]

I don't need to go any further here. This is pointless. You don't even understand basic logic, so how could I possibly have a proper exchange with you?
This time, you've actually made a formally constructed logical argument... and have shown to everybody, that you don't even understand basic logic.

1. I have a Mind.
2 God is a conscious being therefore He has a mind
3. Therefore because i was created second God's mind is higher than me

I mean, I could now point out, that your second premise is a baceless assertion, but I'll let it slide, for one very simple reason:
Your conclusion doesn't even fallow from your premises. And this is probably the thing that really shows how little you understand logic and reasoning. Because usually, theists make formal arguments like that, and fail to support their premises. This is usually the case.
But you create an argument, where the conclusion wouldn't even fallow, even if I granted you all the premisses, and this is just basic. Because how could I expect you to ever present an proper argument, that is both valide and sound, when you can't even fullfill the requirement of validity?

Also, you have now proven to be dishonest.
I've asked you now for a second time, to show me where I've claimed that the multiverse disproves a god. And you've just ignored it.
Actually, even worse: You deliberatly worked around it. You adressed almost all of my points, but the one, where you demonstrably made a claim that you could easily verify if it was true, you skipped.
Because you know it's a lie. At no point did I say that the multiverse would disprove a god, and you know it. And instead of being honest, you rather just pretend that it never happend.
How can I discuss with somebody, who demonstrates that he won't even admit, when he has made a mistake?

You've also piled on to your dishonest claims, by saying stuff like:

"What you have is an argument from ignorance:

1. I don’t know what other universes are like
2. Therefore, we are here by chance"

I've never said that or anything like that. You just wanted to drop the term "argument from ignorance", because I could point out all your fallacies by name, and you didn't care, if you actually attacked something I've said, or if you needed to make stuff up.

You actually repeated the line that I claim that we are here by chance countless times, even though I've pointed out to you, that I don't believe that and never claimed that.
Why do you do this?
Are you hoping, that just repeating it will suddenly make me addopt a position I don't hold?
Or are you not interessted in an honest exchange with me, and don't mind misrepresenting me, because you hope that all the readers here won't read my actual position?

I don't know.
And frankly, I don't care.
You are either willfully dishonest (in which case I lost all interesst in an exchange with you, because I despise dishonest people) or you really do not understand the difference between the things I say, and the things you CLAIM I've said (in which case I've also lost interesste, since there is no point in putting effort into trying to make proper arguments, when the reader is either unwilling or incapable of understanding it).

If you're not being dishonest, a last piece of advice:
If you're ever in an exchange with somebody who disagrees with you, try to understand what he is saying. You can't win anything, by misrepresenting or misunderstanding your oponents position, because you need to understand where he is coming from, to actually deal with his argument.

Good luck in the future.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think this is where sciences borders into philosophy, and the person becomes a little more free to choose rather than being empirically compelled one way or another.

 

[Loudmouth]

We IDers have an argument from analogy:
1. like causes spawn like effects
2. intelligence is the only thing that can fine-tune
3. the universe is fine-tuned
4. therefore the universe is the result of intelligence

The shape of the water in a lake is fine tuned to the shape of the depression in the ground it finds itself in. Natural processes create this fine tuning. Therefore, the the fine tuning of the universe is equally natural.

It seems that your argument from analogy works both ways.

 

[Smidlee]

The shape of the water in a lake is fine tuned to the shape of the depression in the ground it finds itself in. .

In order for the lake to find itself fitting the depression in the ground it would indeed require some amazing fine-tuning. I've never heard them argue the universe was fine-tune for water. Isn't this an example of a strawman?

 

[Loudmouth]

In order for the lake to find itself fitting the depression in the ground it would indeed require some amazing fine-tuning.

How so?

I've never heard them argue the universe was fine-tune for water. Isn't this an example of a strawman?

The universe is as fine tuned for water as it is life. All of the constants that people are citing for the fine tuning of life are also required for the existence and different states of water.

 

[Smidlee]

How so?



The universe is as fine tuned for water as it is life. All of the constants that people are citing for the fine tuning of life are also required for the existence and different states of water.

Still a strawman since there a lot more to their argument than the properties of water.

 

[Loudmouth]

Still a strawman since there a lot more to their argument than the properties of water.

Then show us instead of just claiming it.

 

[Smidlee]

Then show us instead of just claiming it.

No one but atheist claims the universe in fine-tuned for water to fit into a hole. There is nothing to show.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one but atheist claims the universe in fine-tuned for water to fit into a hole. There is nothing to show.

Sure there is. For example:

"Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants.[12][13]

N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to Rees, if it were smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[13]

Epsilon (&#949, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[13]"
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those two things are also required for water. A short lived universe would not produce a 2nd generation of stars necessary for producing oxygen, hence no water.

If Epsilon were too far out of wack, then we don't get oxygen, and no water.

 

[Smidlee]

Sure there is. For example:

"Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless constants.[12][13]

N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. According to Rees, if it were smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[13]

Epsilon (&#949, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.07. If it were 0.06, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.08, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[13]"
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those two things are also required for water. A short lived universe would not produce a 2nd generation of stars necessary for producing oxygen, hence no water.

If Epsilon were too far out of wack, then we don't get oxygen, and no water.

I thought the fine-tune argument isn't about not just one valuable but the combination all of them put together. Just point out one sounds like a strawman to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

I thought the fine-tune argument isn't about not just one valuable but the combination all of them put together. Just point out one sounds like a strawman to me.

Then point out one that is not required for a lake of water with the accompanying geology.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

And more validation from science!

The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe

Although space may have been concentrated into a single point at the Big Bang, it is equally possible that space was infinite at the Big Bang. In both scenarios the space was completely filled with matter which began to expand.





Space does not "BANG" into space that is already taken up by matter. Space, void of matter, is contracted within the infinite.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Then point out one that is not required for a lake of water with the accompanying geology.

The "fine tuning" of water or any liquid to any container requires only; a gravity of any value, acceleration at any speed or centrifugal force at any frequency of rotation.

Any of these at the least or highest value will cause any liquid like substance to perfectly fill/fit what ever size container it is being pulled towards, accelerated by or caught in by the above scenarios.

No "fine tuning" required what so ever to cause water to fill any sized container perfectly.

You may now refrain from using such ill-begotten examples.

 

[JimFit]

The shape of the water in a lake is fine tuned to the shape of the depression in the ground it finds itself in. Natural processes create this fine tuning. Therefore, the the fine tuning of the universe is equally natural.

It seems that your argument from analogy works both ways.

Ah yes the puddle argument that evaporated in the end and went to heaven! Yes i can use this argument for Fine Tuning and the Afterlife as well, lol. The puddle doesn't disprove the Fine Tuning, the puddle argument try to disprove the Tuner and replace him with necessity, there is no reason to believe that the Fine Tuning of the Universe is because of necessity.

This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

 

[JimFit]

I don't need to go any further here. This is pointless. You don't even understand basic logic, so how could I possibly have a proper exchange with you?
This time, you've actually made a formally constructed logical argument... and have shown to everybody, that you don't even understand basic logic.

My ancestors invented logic ΛΟΓΙΚΗ when your ancestors were afraid to enter a cave. Don't speak about logic when you believe that you are a cosmic mistake without purpose or free will that nothingness spewed.

I mean, I could now point out, that your second premise is a baceless assertion, but I'll let it slide, for one very simple reason:
Your conclusion doesn't even fallow from your premises. And this is probably the thing that really shows how little you understand logic and reasoning. Because usually, theists make formal arguments like that, and fail to support their premises. This is usually the case.
But you create an argument, where the conclusion wouldn't even fallow, even if I granted you all the premisses, and this is just basic. Because how could I expect you to ever present an proper argument, that is both valide and sound, when you can't even fullfill the requirement of validity?

The Fine Tuning of the Universe shows intention and intention is proof of a conscious mind, its your problem that you don't accept the thousands of the papers i have presented to you about the Fine Tuning of the Universe. Are you saying that if you won in the roulette trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times in a raw you wouldn't think that the game is staged?

You seem to link consciousness with intelligence, it doesn't work that way and i proved to you that brainless creatures without even neurons are conscious, in Orthodoxy we think that every kind of life is conscious, for me consciousness goes even before life, i think of that because the Universe was intended to create life, it had a goal, the Universe is bio-centric. You can only refuse that if you say that the process wasn't deterministic, that it could evolve differently, but i destroyed this argument as well, if the expansion was smaller the Universe would be destroyed before it even began, here we don't have Universe with life and Universe with no life, here we have Universe or No Universe. If you now say that the Universe started with this fine tuned rate because of necessity you must prove that the physical Universe didn't start at the Big Bang but it existed before the BB in some other form eternaly but that's not right, the BVG Theorem states that even if the Universe existed in quantum fluctuations they can't be past eternal because they are not strong enough.

Also, you have now proven to be dishonest.
I've asked you now for a second time, to show me where I've claimed that the multiverse disproves a god. And you've just ignored it.
Actually, even worse: You deliberatly worked around it. You adressed almost all of my points, but the one, where you demonstrably made a claim that you could easily verify if it was true, you skipped.
Because you know it's a lie. At no point did I say that the multiverse would disprove a god, and you know it. And instead of being honest, you rather just pretend that it never happend.
How can I discuss with somebody, who demonstrates that he won't even admit, when he has made a mistake?

Okay, i searched the whole discussion and you didn't said such thing, i may mistranslated your arguments.Sorry.

You've also piled on to your dishonest claims, by saying stuff like:

"What you have is an argument from ignorance:

1. I don’t know what other universes are like
2. Therefore, we are here by chance"

I've never said that or anything like that. You just wanted to drop the term "argument from ignorance", because I could point out all your fallacies by name, and you didn't care, if you actually attacked something I've said, or if you needed to make stuff up.

But you made an argument from ignorance, you said

Because we can't know if other constances would have created a universe with different kind of life, maybe a universe with better conditions for life...

We can't know therefor chance, therefor the Fine Tuning is proof of chance not designer, it doesn't follow.

 

[Loudmouth]

The "fine tuning" of water or any liquid to any container requires only; a gravity of any value, acceleration at any speed or centrifugal force at any frequency of rotation.

As already shown, this isn't true. If gravity is too strong then the universe never expands, and we get no water or planets for it to pool on. If gravity is too weak then we never get star formation that is needed to produce oxygen.

Any of these at the least or highest value will cause any liquid like substance to perfectly fill/fit what ever size container it is being pulled towards, accelerated by or caught in by the above scenarios.

But the liquid may or may not be water which is the focus of the discussion.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Fine Tuning of the Universe shows intention and intention is proof of a conscious mind, its your problem that you don't accept the thousands of the papers i have presented to you about the Fine Tuning of the Universe. Are you saying that if you won in the roulette trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times in a raw you wouldn't think that the game is staged?

The problem is that you are only aware of one winner, and you don't know how many times the roullete wheel has been spun.

The whole fine tuning argument assumes that this is the only universe, and they have no evidence to support this assumption. Therefore, any claims of improbability are baseless. What you have instead is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy where you draw the bullseye around the bullet hole.

You seem to link consciousness with intelligence, it doesn't work that way and i proved to you that brainless creatures without even neurons are conscious, in Orthodoxy we think that every kind of life is conscious, for me consciousness goes even before life, i think of that because the Universe was intended to create life, it had a goal, the Universe is bio-centric.

How did you determine that the goal of the Universe was biology instead of geology, black holes, or pretty stellar nebulae? The universe is as fine tuned for the moon Io orbitting around Jupiter as it is for life. The same balance of constants is needed for many, many non-biological features of the universe. Picking life out of all of these other features is nothing more than bias.

if the expansion was smaller the Universe would be destroyed before it even began, here we don't have Universe with life and Universe with no life, here we have Universe or No Universe.

If the expansion was smaller we also wouldn't have Io.

We can't know therefor chance, therefor the Fine Tuning is proof of chance not designer, it doesn't follow.

We don't know, therefore we don't know. You are claiming that you do know.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ah yes the puddle argument that evaporated in the end and went to heaven! Yes i can use this argument for Fine Tuning and the Afterlife as well, lol. The puddle doesn't disprove the Fine Tuning, the puddle argument try to disprove the Tuner and replace him with necessity, there is no reason to believe that the Fine Tuning of the Universe is because of necessity.

This alternative seems extraordinarily implausible because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

And if the laws were different then our universe would be different. A different universe would have characteristics unique to that universe, and since you paint the bullseye around the bullet hole, we would have to conclude that every univese is fine tuned for the unique features found in that universe.