A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Loudmouth]

It actively moves around from one food source to another looking for the 'right' foods in the 'right' balance. You've certainly haven't shown that it *lacks* awareness.

You still haven't shown the mechanisms that amoeba use for awareness. If your definition for awareness is so broad as to include the lac operon from E. coli, then I would say that your definition is a bit too broad.

What we lack is common ground as it relates to awareness. I think it would really help if you could discuss the lac operon as it relates to awareness so that we can be on the same page.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you please tell me how Multiverses destroy the Fine Tuning?

The argument is that the universe has to be fine tuned because the odds of getting our universe in a single trial is very improbable. The problem is the assumption that there has only been a single trial. You have never demonstrated this to be a fact.

We really don't have to invoke a multiverse or evidence it. What is required is for YOU to evidence that this is the only universe in existence since the fine tuning argument hinges on this assumption.

There are additional problems. First, if a universe is not capable of producing intelligent life, who is there to notice? That is a serious detection bias. Secondly, you have never shown that intelligent life was what the universe was fine tuned for. Third, you have not demonstrated that the constants can be anything else.

Again your reply is pure ignorance.

You said

"We don't know how many universes there are"

Right. Your argument depends on there being only one universe, or very few. Therefore, your argument is not supported until you can tell us exactly how many universes there are.

How do you know that there are other Universes?

How do you know there aren't?

Let me use this analogy. I have a giant sack of little tiles. You stick your hand in the sack and pull out a tile with the number 549 on it. From that information alone, what are the odds that you would pull out a tile with that number on it? Show your math.

 

[davidbilby]

This is ad populum fallacy, many people think Penrose is wrong therefor Penrose is wrong.

Incorrect. The fallacy only applies in a logical argument. I was not inferring he was wrong because people don't believe he is right, I was simply saying that not many people think he is, from my professional experience in the field of advanced physics, which is reasonably large, certainly compared to what I presume is your experience in said field. Even if I had been making a logical argument, the opposite does not apply, since pointing out an ad populum doesn't mean the statement is necessarily wrong either.

The Cosmological Constant and the other 11 Constants are not shaking

There are many more constants and hypothesised constants (the cosmological constant being one hypothesis, albeit one with good support) than 11, by the way, but your point remains irrelevant. The supposed "fine tuning" of those constants depends solely on certain chosen statistical functions, and the basis used to assert the "fine tuning" (not the constancy, the fine tuning) of those constants is at best, unproven in any manner whatosever, and at worst, simply wrong.

Thus, to use that as a bedrock for claiming the existence of a deity is unproven at best and simply wrong at worst, also.

if you don't accept something (because it destroys your belief that you are a cosmic mistake without purpose or free will that nothingness spewed)

I could say that your belief that your belief that you are the pinnacle of creation, the most important thing in the universe with a delusion bordering on solipsism is your problem, but that would be an equally arrogant position based on a straw man. There are so many mischaracterizations in your sentence it is hard to know where to start. "Mistake" implies an unused capacity for intention on the behalf of a supreme creator - I don't believe that to be the case. Religions don't have a monopoly on the concept of "purpose" although they routinely claim such a thing (usually monotheistically). "Nothingness" is an impossible to define concept that doesn't tally at all with our present concepts of the inflationary epoch, or really any other theory.

The Constants are well defined and accepted from the whole Scientific community, Stenger was a heretic but i hope God will rest his soul.

How very condescending of you. Nonetheless, once again, you display your ignorance. the "Constants"...well, actually, no, they're not very well defined, if by defined you mean measured, which is what you do mean, I think...not all of them.

Secondly, whether or not they are constant has NO bearing on their statistical likelihood at any given time, which is where the idea of fine tuning comes from. Simply saying they are constant and thinking that anybody who argues against fine tuning is actually arguing against their constancy is where you are going repeatedly wrong.

There are numerous constants that are, indeed, constant...but to further claim they are fine-tuned is simply not tenable. Certainly not yet tenable, at the very best case scenario, and if that's the foundation you choose to build your religious beliefs on, then you'd better be prepared to abandon them if the foundation shakes...

God is one because He is Eternal

Meaningless woo. So is the flying spaghetti monster, so is Allah, so is Zeus...and so on. Once again, even if you could prove fine tuning it doesn't help prove the divinity of YOUR specific deity - at all.

you can't use 2 infinities (2 Gods)

Every polytheist that ever existed disagrees...

, it doesn't make sense, it is like using 2 nothings.

In the sense that they are equal glimpses of the untrue perhaps...but none of what you're saying makes sense.

In the question which God is Him?

Yeah, that's a biggie. Why your God and not Allah? Why not Apollo?

Well here Theology comes in

How very scientific.

if God was bad why did He even create us?

Who said anything about him being bad? Go ask a Muslim if they think Allah is bad, I dare you

So God is Good, if God was arrogant and unfair that created us to show off his power why we can understand the Creation he made?

We don't understand "creation". We don't even begin to understand a fraction of it. Only religion claims we somehow do, which is its great downfall, every time a new scientific discovery comes along, religion either has to go "yeah, we predicted that!" or make some muttering apology. If the Bible contained a little bit more about DNA and the structure of the genome, and a little less slavery, murder, rape, pillage, and descriptions of who begat who and the value of human life in terms of money, I do believe we might be a bit more impressed by it.

So God is fair

Few could read the whole of the Old Testament and think that the Judeo-Christian god is "fair". This is your basis for morality? If you are in an car accident that is in no way your fault that severs your genitalia, you know you don't go to heaven - automatically (deuteronomy 23:1)?

This is your "fair" God?

and so on and so forth...it takes lots of studies to learn about the true nature of God.

Please leave the rest of us out of your collective argument from ignorance on behalf of the human race. It's a funny thing religion - claiming to know the truth, but then claiming that God is a mystery, so actually we can't know the truth, but we all have to bow down and hand over our money to those claiming this is the supreme truth. Erm....no, sorry.

 

[davidbilby]

If you change the Planck Constant there is no Universe at all!

The constant depends entirely on the unit system chosen (in this case usually m, kg and s), so actually, no, that's not true, and if you change the Planck constant, you can still have a universe; it's simply that another constant would need to change.

There are numerous potential parameter spaces. The arbitrary fixing of all other constants and alteration of just one is a ridiculous notion, and just that....arbitrary. It proves nothing. Worse still, it doesn't prove the existence of a deity, let alone a specific deity, let alone provide any evidence whatsoever of the divinity of some guy walking around in the desert a couple of thousand years ago.

Also you should consider this - the assumption that the universe is fine-tuned for life specifically, would still not be shown by showing fine tuning. Ascribing a supposed purpose simply isn't scientifically tenable.

 

[Michael]

Incorrect. The fallacy only applies in a logical argument. I was not inferring he was wrong because people don't believe he is right, I was simply saying that not many people think he is, from my professional experience in the field of advanced physics, which is reasonably large, certainly compared to what I presume is your experience in said field. Even if I had been making a logical argument, the opposite does not apply, since pointing out an ad populum doesn't mean the statement is necessarily wrong either.

So Penrose might be right, both about Orch-OR, and about your ridiculous inflation claims.

The supposed "fine tuning" of those constants depends solely on certain chosen statistical functions, and the basis used to assert the "fine tuning" (not the constancy, the fine tuning) of those constants is at best, unproven in any manner whatosever, and at worst, simply wrong.

Thus, to use that as a bedrock for claiming the existence of a deity is unproven at best and simply wrong at worst, also.

Oh the irony.

There are numerous constants that are, indeed, constant...but to further claim they are fine-tuned is simply not tenable. Certainly not yet tenable, at the very best case scenario, and if that's the foundation you choose to build your religious beliefs on, then you'd better be prepared to abandon them if the foundation shakes...

So will you follow your own advice with respect to your Tensor mode tilt fiasco, or will you go right back to boastfully and arrogantly peddling the same falsified nonsense?

Please leave the rest of us out of your collective argument from ignorance on behalf of the human race. It's a funny thing religion - claiming to know the truth, but then claiming that God is a mystery, so actually we can't know the truth, but we all have to bow down and hand over our money to those claiming this is the supreme truth. Erm....no, sorry.

Yet you claim that the existence of inflation and dark energy and exotic matter are somehow representative of 'truth' and you personally attack anyone who dares to question your faith in supernatural constructs. Pot meet kettle.

 

[Michael]

You still haven't shown the mechanisms that amoeba use for awareness. If your definition for awareness is so broad as to include the lac operon from E. coli, then I would say that your definition is a bit too broad.

What we lack is common ground as it relates to awareness. I think it would really help if you could discuss the lac operon as it relates to awareness so that we can be on the same page.

Lac operon? Man, you're going to make me do some reading now. It's been awhile since I've cracked a biology book.

I don't recall the lac operon process requiring movement to find a new source, but I'll check it out again first.

 

[davidbilby]

So Penrose might be right, both about Orch-OR, and about your ridiculous inflation claims.

Well, Penrose doesn't think what you think about Orch-OR and little of his idea means what you pretended you think it means (eg...."soul") so, yes, he might be right, but no, that wouldn't make you right. However I see little evidence that he is right, and I see a lot of woo from the Deepak Chopra camp seeping in and untenable leaps from quantum activity in microstructures in the brain to coherent quantum processes. Warm wet and noisy still applies, they've really not shown otherwise, and the only source of numbers so far from the other side is...well, let's say, not going to convince many. Hence why we try and have other groups replicate work.

If Penrose is right about his cosmology, you're wrong also, since he tends to cyclical theories..."tends" being perhaps too loose a term. "leaps on" might be better.

Let's point out that the number of ways you and Penrose agree on the subject. That would be none. Of course mention of you in the same sentence is an errant comparison, since he's a (reasonably) respected physicist, and you're not. Yeah, deal with it. Suck it up.

Oh the irony.

Only to those who think that mathematics is inherently deistic, which is about as ridiculous an assertion as it gets. By the way, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this ludicrous, stupid, idiotic assertion, it doesn't make it correct or clever and that fact will continue to be true forever more.

So will you follow your own advice with respect to your Tensor mode tilt fiasco, or will you go right back to boastfully and arrogantly peddling the same falsified nonsense?

Since you've now upgraded it to "fiasco" level on the scale of "michael-ness", please enlighten me as to why Cheng Cheng's numbers are wrong from the paper earlier this year and why the paper published the other day is correct, or a specific physical reason why a sterile neutrino hypothesis to reconcile the tilt issue would be de facto disallowed. Be specific, please. Otherwise why don't you move back to topics you actually know a little about? Can you even explain what the tilt being discussed is, in your own words?

 

[JimFit]

How do they make decisions? Is it like the process seen with E. coli and lactose?

Does it take thinking to make a decision?

 

[JimFit]

The argument is that the universe has to be fine tuned because the odds of getting our universe in a single trial is very improbable. The problem is the assumption that there has only been a single trial. You have never demonstrated this to be a fact.

Multiverses had to be also fine tuned, they exist inside a bubble that needs fine tuning also!

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
2.1 Fine tuning is not due to Physical Necessity.
2.11 M-theory permits 10500 different universes with various values of the fundamental constants and quantities.
2.2 Fine tuning is not due to Chance.
2.21 Multiverse hypothesis faces Boltzmann Brain problem.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

We really don't have to invoke a multiverse or evidence it. What is required is for YOU to evidence that this is the only universe in existence since the fine tuning argument hinges on this assumption.

I can't prove a negative.

There are additional problems. First, if a universe is not capable of producing intelligent life, who is there to notice? That is a serious detection bias. Secondly, you have never shown that intelligent life was what the universe was fine tuned for. Third, you have not demonstrated that the constants can be anything else.

1 Noone, but we have intelligence here so your argument goes to garbage
2 The Universe doesn't have intention, the Tuner of the Universe has intention
3 I can't prove a negative.

Right. Your argument depends on there being only one universe, or very few. Therefore, your argument is not supported until you can tell us exactly how many universes there are.

The Multiverse also needs to be fine tuned to exist, Multiverse demands a beginning also.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012v2.pdf

How do you know there aren't?

Let me use this analogy. I have a giant sack of little tiles. You stick your hand in the sack and pull out a tile with the number 549 on it. From that information alone, what are the odds that you would pull out a tile with that number on it? Show your math.

I can't prove a negative, you must prove that these delusional Universes exist but if they exist they need a Mother Universe that creates Universes and that ALSO needs Fine Tuning.
We know now that the Multiverse demand a beginning, therefor they can't be infinite, M-theory permits 10500 different universes with various values of the fundamental constants and quantities.That's not enough to solve the Fine Tuning.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/The_Multiverse_Conundrum

 

[Michael]

Well, Penrose doesn't think what you think about Orch-OR and little of his idea means what you pretended you think it means (eg...."soul") so, yes,

Well, here's what Hammeroff had to say about it:

But what exactly is consciousness, where does it come from and can it be scientifically proven? Dr. Stuart Hameroff, MD, is Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and the Director of the Center of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona and much of his research over the past few decades has been in the field of quantum mechanics, dedicated to studying consciousness.
According to Dr. Hameroff, in a near-death experience, when the heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, and the microtubules lose their quantum state, the quantum information in the microtubules isn't destroyed. It's distributed to the universe at large, and if the patient is revived, the quantum information can go back to the microtubules. In this event, the patient says they had something like a near-death experience, i.e. they saw white light or a tunnel or floated out of their body. In the event that the patient is not revived, "it's possible that the quantum information can can exist outside the body, perhaps indefinitely, as a soul," he said.

I'm not absolutely certain about the other author's take on their Orch-OR theory, but in terms of Hammeroff's opinions, we don't sound so far apart from where I sit.

Hence why we try and have other groups replicate work.

In Penrose/Hammeroff's case that's possible because it's something that we can presumably examine in a lab right here on Earth. In the case of inflation however, it's an act of faith that 'space' does magical expansion tricks somewhere *other than* Earth in the first place, not to mention your multiple leaps of faith in inflation and dark energy and exotic forms of matter being related to such a process.

If Penrose is right about his cosmology, you're wrong also, since he tends to cyclical theories..."tends" being perhaps too loose a term. "leaps on" might be better.

I don't have any problem with cyclical theories, in fact Alfven's ideas were quiet similar in that respect.

Let's point out that the number of ways you and Penrose agree on the subject. That would be none.

Well, you're definitely wrong with respect to Penrose and me both being ok with cyclical processes in spacetime and you're definitely wrong about me and Hammeroff with respect Orch-OR theory and soul. I'm not sure where Penrose stands on the Orch-OR thing actually.

Of course mention of you in the same sentence is an errant comparison, since he's a (reasonably) respected physicist, and you're not. Yeah, deal with it. Suck it up.

You just can't resist that personal 'shot' stuff, can you? It's not in your nature to stick to *topics* apparently.

Only to those who think that mathematics is inherently deistic, which is about as ridiculous an assertion as it gets.

Eh? I don't even get where you come up with your strawmen sometimes.

Since you've now upgraded it to "fiasco" level on the scale of "michael-ness", please enlighten me as to why Cheng Cheng's numbers are wrong from the paper earlier this year

Why? I haven't looked at them and you've never cited them. This wouldn't be your way of getting out of your responsibility for finding the flaw(s) in Parkinson's work would it? At least I provided you with a reference that included a link to his paper. When did you even cite Cheng?

and why the paper published the other day is correct,

Well, for starters, *I* can't find any mistake in his work. You haven't found any mistake in his work either. I therefore have no logical reason to doubt his work. Do you?

or a specific physical reason why a sterile neutrino hypothesis to reconcile the tilt issue would be de facto disallowed.

You don't grok the whole "in the lab" concept, do you? *Theoretical" physics isn't a "fix" for your problems, it's the *whole cause* of your problems. Your entire house of cards is built upon one hypothetical "fix" after another, after another, after another. Adding *more* of them to "fix" your problems is like adding gasoline to a fire that's already burning out of supernatural control.

Be specific, please. Otherwise why don't you move back to topics you actually know a little about? Can you even explain what the tilt being discussed is, in your own words?

Why would I even bother? You're only asking me with the intent of simply diverting the conversation away from the topic and onto the *individual* again. Same trick, different day.

 

[davidbilby]

Multiverses had to be also fine tuned, they exist inside a bubble that needs fine tuning also!

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due

Let's stop there.

Your "argument" has already failed at this point. The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened. You cannot prove the universe is fine-tuned, thus you cannot prove that there had to be a fine tuner. Even if you could prove that there was fine tuning that would not prove there was a fine-tuner. Even if you could prove there was a fine-tuner that would not prove it to be the Judeo-Christian God.

Thus you've managed to get nowhere. Congratulations.

 

[Michael]

Let's stop there.

Your "argument" has already failed at this point. The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened. You cannot prove the universe is fine-tuned, thus you cannot prove that there had to be a fine tuner. Even if you could prove that there was fine tuning that would not prove there was a fine-tuner. Even if you could prove there was a fine-tuner that would not prove it to be the Judeo-Christian God.

Thus you've managed to get nowhere. Congratulations.

But somehow you have a "sure winner" on your hands in spite of the fact your inflation entity is "fine tuned" to the tune of 10 to the 100th power!

 

[davidbilby]

But somehow you have a "sure winner" on your hands in spite of the fact your inflation entity is "fine tuned" to the tune of 10 to the 100th power!

This is like talking to a parrot.

Read this again:

The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened.

Penrose's statistical methodology makes untenable assumptions about the pre-inflationary state. All estimates of this kind depend on the model, they are absolutely dependent on the parameter space.

And of course, the model (typical of Penrose) he used didn't - couldn't in fact - deal with quantum effects. Once you start factoring those in, say as in LQC, instead of being unlikely...inflation is essentially inevitable.

[0912.4093] Loop quantum cosmology and slow roll inflation

So once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Michael]

This is like talking to a parrot.

Read this again:

The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened.

10 to the 100'th power doesn't sound "a little weak" to me, it sounds borderline *impossible*. You claim it's not 'tuned' as well?

Penrose's statistical methodology makes untenable assumptions about the pre-inflationary state.

Like?

All estimates of this kind depend on the model, they are absolutely dependent on the parameter space.

And? You do realize that we haven't even talked about or computed any odds on the likelihood that 'space' does expansion tricks, or that "inflation" has anything to do with that process, or that 'dark energy' somehow 'speeds up" that process, or that exotic forms of matter must exist. You're so far out on thin ice in terms of the supernatural odds that it's not even funny.

And of course, the model (typical of Penrose) he used didn't - couldn't in fact - deal with quantum effects. Once you start factoring those in, say as in LQC, instead of being unlikely...inflation is essentially inevitable.

Gee, how funny that something which is 'inevitable' only ever happens once in 13.8+ billion years anywhere that we might observe it happen.

[0912.4093] Loop quantum cosmology and slow roll inflation

So once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

So which tilt does "slow roll" inflation predict, and does it (fail the Bicep2 tensor tilt data) like the rest of them?

 

[Viren]

Just because the universe is complex and in equilibrium doesn't prove God. That argument never made sense to me.

 

[Michael]

Just because the universe is complex and in equilibrium doesn't prove God. That argument never made sense to me.

I've never considered it to be a particularly "strong" argument either frankly.

 

[JimFit]

Incorrect. The fallacy only applies in a logical argument. I was not inferring he was wrong because people don't believe he is right, I was simply saying that not many people think he is, from my professional experience in the field of advanced physics, which is reasonably large, certainly compared to what I presume is your experience in said field. Even if I had been making a logical argument, the opposite does not apply, since pointing out an ad populum doesn't mean the statement is necessarily wrong either.

Can you show me a paper you have published or any contribution you did to science? Penrose is famous, you are not, you must wonder why, maybe you are doing something wrong.

There are many more constants and hypothesised constants (the cosmological constant being one hypothesis, albeit one with good support) than 11, by the way, but your point remains irrelevant. The supposed "fine tuning" of those constants depends solely on certain chosen statistical functions, and the basis used to assert the "fine tuning" (not the constancy, the fine tuning) of those constants is at best, unproven in any manner whatosever, and at worst, simply wrong.

Fine Tuning is real either you accept it or not, to disprove it you must disprove that the constants are really constants, please do it.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

Thus, to use that as a bedrock for claiming the existence of a deity is unproven at best and simply wrong at worst, also.

The fact that we do Science and understand the Universe proves that we are incomplete Gods that seek the perfection of God and because we were created with intention and intelligence and because we were created after God it means that intention pre-exists the creation of the Universe, therefor there was a conscious Mind that created us. Atheists have 2 ways to remove God, infinite physical past of cause and effect or Nothingness that creates something, please tell me how these 2 scenarios are logical to believe them when you arguing with your intelligence?

I could say that your belief that your belief that you are the pinnacle of creation, the most important thing in the universe with a delusion bordering on solipsism is your problem, but that would be an equally arrogant position based on a straw man. There are so many mischaracterizations in your sentence it is hard to know where to start. "Mistake" implies an unused capacity for intention on the behalf of a supreme creator - I don't believe that to be the case. Religions don't have a monopoly on the concept of "purpose" although they routinely claim such a thing (usually monotheistically). "Nothingness" is an impossible to define concept that doesn't tally at all with our present concepts of the inflationary epoch, or really any other theory.

You can't have your own purpose if you don't have free will therefor atheists have no purpose, they are the result of their physical necessity. Something that is created without intention it is a mistake, it wasn't planned to be created! Even necessity can't help you here, you can't have an infinite chain of cause and effects in the past!

How very condescending of you. Nonetheless, once again, you display your ignorance. the "Constants"...well, actually, no, they're not very well defined, if by defined you mean measured, which is what you do mean, I think...not all of them.

I am talking about the basic constants, they have been measured.

Secondly, whether or not they are constant has NO bearing on their statistical likelihood at any given time, which is where the idea of fine tuning comes from. Simply saying they are constant and thinking that anybody who argues against fine tuning is actually arguing against their constancy is where you are going repeatedly wrong.

If they are not really constants why do we observe galaxies far away from us? Isn't the Universe homogeneous? We can observe the constants live, they are not statistical numbers.

There are numerous constants that are, indeed, constant...but to further claim they are fine-tuned is simply not tenable. Certainly not yet tenable, at the very best case scenario, and if that's the foundation you choose to build your religious beliefs on, then you'd better be prepared to abandon them if the foundation shakes...

Suppose the gravitational constant was increased +1. The fine-tuning argument would suggest gravity would be so great, that the universe would collapse in on itself before life had any chance to evolve (insomuch as any macro-evolution can occur in the first place). Ok. We added +1 to what the gravitational constant could have been. What if it was +2. Then we don’t need to do the math to know that it would be even more life prohibitive. How about +3? Still no life. Why stop there….How about +4? +5? …..etc… to.+infinity? The same goes in the opposite direction. -1 and the universe can’t form heavy elements, and stars would not form (insomuch as stars could form from a big bang in the first place). If you go -2 from fine tuning, you obviously don’t help the prospects, you logically hurt the prospects of any form of life. This would go all the way that possible range will go (probably to 0). But you still have an infinite number of possibilities. So, I’d content, if it can be shown that the range of possibilities could be infinite, then it necessarily means that our universe is infinitely fine tuned.
And that’s just looking at one fine tuned constant.

Meaningless woo. So is the flying spaghetti monster, so is Allah, so is Zeus...and so on. Once again, even if you could prove fine tuning it doesn't help prove the divinity of YOUR specific deity - at all.

God is not a Physical being because the physical Universe began therefor your argument goes to garbage because God by definition created the Universe and He is not part of it. Allah is the word God in another language.

Every polytheist that ever existed disagrees...

And because they disagree my answer is wrong? Again how can you use plural on something Infinite? Isn't that pure stupidity?

In the sense that they are equal glimpses of the untrue perhaps...but none of what you're saying makes sense.

How does it NOT make sense? Having 2 infinities is like having 2 nothings, they are logical paradoxes.

Yeah, that's a biggie. Why your God and not Allah? Why not Apollo?

Allah means God.
Apollo is a God with human characteristics, you can't have a human God because God exists before Nature and humans. God is immaterial with no form and no voice. Imagine this, someone is deaf and blind, does he hear voices when he thinks? No. Does he sees images when he thinks? No. Does that mean that he is not thinking? Of course not.

How very scientific.

Ah i see...something from nothingness or something from an infinite past chain of cause and effect are scientific.
Theology use humans to understand God. We use something that exists, our Minds therefor its not something "foreign" to science.

Who said anything about him being bad? Go ask a Muslim if they think Allah is bad, I dare you

If you believe in objective morality their God is wrong simply because it commands to murder the unfaithful and that destroys Free Will and the reason of an afterlife because God placed us in this life to make a conscious decision to be like Him in goodness.

We don't understand "creation". We don't even begin to understand a fraction of it.

I wouldn't say its a fraction, i think humans will understand everything because they are the images of the Creator.

Only religion claims we somehow do, which is its great downfall, every time a new scientific discovery comes along, religion either has to go "yeah, we predicted that!" or make some muttering apology. If the Bible contained a little bit more about DNA and the structure of the genome, and a little less slavery, murder, rape, pillage, and descriptions of who begat who and the value of human life in terms of money, I do believe we might be a bit more impressed by it.

LOL! Science is neutral on questions about existence but atheists like you use Science to prove that humans are cosmic mistakes without purpose or free will that Nothingness or a mindless eternal past chain of events created without intention. This is wrong. Science is closer to Theism than on Atheism and that's because studying every cause shows how everything was organized for us to arrive like a red carpet, i mean the opposite of intention is aimlessness. How can Science even propose something aimlessness when even the purposeless things are through necessity?

Few could read the whole of the Old Testament and think that the Judeo-Christian god is "fair". This is your basis for morality? If you are in an car accident that is in no way your fault that severs your genitalia, you know you don't go to heaven - automatically (deuteronomy 23:1)?

This is your "fair" God?

Yeah right because Christians still follow the Mosaic Law, yeap i must think to go for a circumcision! Again the Mosaic Law is man made and applied only to the people of Israel (Judea). The heart of the Law is divine "You must love your God with all your heart and all your soul and you must love your neighbor as yourself"

Please leave the rest of us out of your collective argument from ignorance on behalf of the human race. It's a funny thing religion - claiming to know the truth, but then claiming that God is a mystery, so actually we can't know the truth, but we all have to bow down and hand over our money to those claiming this is the supreme truth. Erm....no, sorry.

As i said something causeless would automaticaly destroy God, if we have cause God is still there, the Universe began, the Universe shows extreme tuning, this tuning can't be an effect of chance or necessity therefor the cause was transcendental and conscious, i am conscious, i have intelligence, why i must remove an intelligence as a Creator when i understand the Universe with my Mind? The other 2 scenarios are illogical not God.

 

[JimFit]

Let's stop there.

Your "argument" has already failed at this point. The fine-tuning of the universe is not proven. It is an assumption and a weak one at that, depending on the statistical methodology used to calculate the probability that a certain outcome would have happened. You cannot prove the universe is fine-tuned, thus you cannot prove that there had to be a fine tuner. Even if you could prove that there was fine tuning that would not prove there was a fine-tuner. Even if you could prove there was a fine-tuner that would not prove it to be the Judeo-Christian God.

Thus you've managed to get nowhere. Congratulations.

Okay so the constants are not constants, they why do we observe other galaxies? If the gravitational constant was not really a constant why galaxies have the same structure?
I think this paper puts a gravestone on "it has not been proven"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

 

[JimFit]

The constant depends entirely on the unit system chosen (in this case usually m, kg and s), so actually, no, that's not true, and if you change the Planck constant, you can still have a universe; it's simply that another constant would need to change.

There are numerous potential parameter spaces. The arbitrary fixing of all other constants and alteration of just one is a ridiculous notion, and just that....arbitrary. It proves nothing. Worse still, it doesn't prove the existence of a deity, let alone a specific deity, let alone provide any evidence whatsoever of the divinity of some guy walking around in the desert a couple of thousand years ago.

Also you should consider this - the assumption that the universe is fine-tuned for life specifically, would still not be shown by showing fine tuning. Ascribing a supposed purpose simply isn't scientifically tenable.

Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.

 

[davidbilby]

10 to the 100'th power doesn't sound "a little weak" to me, it sounds borderline *impossible*.

Which is why it's great that that's not the number once you factor in quantum mechanics, especially as regards LQC. It's also not the number in most inflationary models anyway, since the parameter space is different (obviously).

You claim it's not 'tuned' as well?

That depends on the number to some extent, but no. If it were that unlikely that would be strong evidence that it was a very statistical unlikelihood, but certainly wouldn't trump anthropic arguments or multiverse explanations. It wouldn't prove the existence of a deity, and certainly wouldn't prove the existence of any particular deity.

Like?

Well the fact that you don't even know what the subject truly is and just keep trotting out the popsci number from the 1970's. You haven't even mentioned Weyl, which makes it look a little silly to keep repeating the number as fact. The actual problem is vigorously discussed and relates mostly to the mathematical definition of entropy, especially as within quantum mechanics, the absence of which makes such probabilities kinda silly. Not to mention there are lots of potential ways out (complementarity for one). You should read some Susskind if you're really interested. We're sort of WAY WAY WAY WAY past this in terms of complexity.

And?

And what?

You do realize that we haven't even talked about or computed any odds on the likelihood that 'space' does expansion tricks

Sure we have, that's what we are talking about

or that "inflation" has anything to do with that process

oh for god's sake really? That's your objection?

, or that 'dark energy' somehow 'speeds up" that process

You have a cosmological constant holding your universe static - there is no difference mathematically, in essence. Why the objection?

, or that exotic forms of matter must exist. You're so far out on thin ice in terms of the supernatural odds that it's not even funny.

Only because you label everything you don't understand "supernatural". That's your problem, not ours.

Gee, how funny that something which is 'inevitable' only ever happens once in 13.8+ billion years anywhere that we might observe it happen.

Who says it's happened only once? Also, why do you think it should happen multiple times to the same universe?

So which tilt does "slow roll" inflation predict, and does it have Bicep2 Parkinson's disease like the rest of them?

What an incredibly offensive and flippant statement. I strongly suggest you delete that.