A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[davidbilby]

Okay so the constants are not constants

Did I say that?

No, I did not.

 

[davidbilby]

Can you show me a paper you have published or any contribution you did to science?

I could easily, but I'm not going to, because I'm not stupid, and I do enjoy discussions taking place anonymously. That's my right.

Penrose is famous, you are not, you must wonder why, maybe you are doing something wrong.

He is famous for many reasons, not all of which are him being right about everything, which he's not been. He is a genius though, no question, but occasionally....eh, not so much. This is not a field where things are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Maths at this level...how to describe it...is not about "1+1 = 2, tick from the teacher, gold star..."

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

No, you don't have to do any such thing. Not even slightly. Not even vaguely. Nobody thinks that but you. The constancy of a constant and whether or not said constant is fine-tuned are two entirely separate concepts.

 

[Michael]

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).

So basically you're just 'fine tuning' the parameters you like in advance to "minimize' the problems created by inflation with respect to homogeneity.

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.

Even the 'deity' that I put faith in doesn't have anywhere near as many "fine tuned' parameters and custom built, ad hoc supernatural properties as *one* of yours, and you have at least four of them going now. I can also "see" the "deity' I believe in, whereas your pantheon of supernatural constructs are all invisible, and apparently all impotent on Earth.

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.

I'm not repeating it as 'fact", I'm simply noting that it exists and I'm not in denial of the fine tuning that goes on inflation theories (plural).

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.

Ya, even I realize you've "moved on' to ever more complicated supernatural ad hoc constructs over the years.

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

Nope. Those odds start by *assuming* that space actually expands. I don't think they even had/have anything to do with the odds that 'dark energy' exists or has some effect on 'space expansion'.

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

It's only one of many. The most important objection is that all your claims are based upon affirming the consequent fallacies and they are unfalsifiable by any means as your 'fixes' for your tensor tilt problem demonstrates. You simply "fine tune' the parameters of your supernatural construct and go right back to peddling the same creation mythos anyway.

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

The constant I've defined A) exists in nature and B) can be shown to have a real effect on real plasma. That's the two primary differences between our "constants".

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

It's 'supernatural' because if such a thing did exist on Earth, you wouldn't have to *imagine* the cause/effect relationships, you would be able to physically demonstrate them. Dark energy was the ultimate ad hoc 'supernatural' extension. Other than saving one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from falsification, it serves no other purpose in physics.

Who says it's happened only once?

Do you any evidence of it happening even once?

Also, why do you think it should happen multiple times to the same universe?

Gee, maybe because every other energy transfer process in nature takes place more than once?

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

It's too late for that now I suppose (I did actually remove it), but you're right, it was an insensitive and offensive comment, and I do apologize for the flippancy. It was unwarranted, and we both know the answer to my rhetorical question anyway.

 

[JimFit]

No, you don't have to do any such thing. Not even slightly. Not even vaguely. Nobody thinks that but you. The constancy of a constant and whether or not said constant is fine-tuned are two entirely separate concepts.

Of course its the same thing, if one value is different then there is no Fine Tuning. The Fine Tuning is through the values of the constants and if these values can change there would be no reason to think the constant as a constant.

 

[RichardParker]

Did I say that?

No, I did not.

He rarly argues against what you are actually saying.
He has the tendency of arguing against the things he wants you to say.

 

[JimFit]

He is famous for many reasons, not all of which are him being right about everything, which he's not been. He is a genius though, no question, but occasionally....eh, not so much. This is not a field where things are absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Maths at this level...how to describe it...is not about "1+1 = 2, tick from the teacher, gold star...".

I don't think that's an argument against the Fine Tuning, there are Scientists that accept the Fine Tuning, i don't think you are smarter than them, they must have seen something to accept it because most of the are atheists. If the Fine Tuning doesn't exist then there is no reason to propose a Theory of Everything, in this video Susskind talks about the Fine Tuning as something that exists and proposes a way to solve it, if the Fine Tuning didn't exist why did he thought a way to get rid of it? He could easily refute it as false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX14dGE2wr4

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I don't think that's an argument against the Fine Tuning, there are Scientists that accept the Fine Tuning, i don't think you are smarter than them, they must have seen something to accept it because most of the are atheists. If the Fine Tuning doesn't exist then there is no reason to propose a Theory of Everything, in this video Susskind talks about the Fine Tuning as something that exists and proposes a way to solve it, if the Fine Tuning didn't exist why did he thought a way to get rid of it? He could easily refute it as false.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX14dGE2wr4

Ray Comfort used the banana to "prove" god's existence.

The fine tuning argument is the same thing.

 

[JimFit]

Ray Comfort used the banana to "prove" god's existence.

The fine tuning argument is the same thing.

The Cosmological Constant is on a sharp edge. No one can deny that, the only people that deny it are the atheists like you who believe that they are cosmic mistakes that nothingness spewed and they don't want their faith to be disturbed.

I mean this number doesn't show Fine Tuning to you?
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

The fine tuning argument isn’t the argument that the earth is just the right distance from the sun and has all the right chemicals etc. It’s about the gravitational constant, the strong and weak nuclear forces etc.: they have to be in just the right range for planets to form at all!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ray Comfort used the banana to "prove" god's existence.

As I understand it, scientists gave us the species of banana we enjoy today.

Mr. Comfort's video is, to me, an example of how God gifts us scientists to make our lives more comfortable.

 

[TLK Valentine]

As I understand it, scientists gave us the species of banana we enjoy today.

Mr. Comfort's video is, to me, an example of how God gifts us scientists to make our lives more comfortable.

Which goes against your idea that scientists are in league with Satan to invalidate every jot and tittle of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which goes against your idea that scientists are in league with Satan to invalidate every jot and tittle of the Bible.

Not all of them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not all of them.

Just the ones you can use.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just the ones you can use.

I like bananas, yes.

Especially in my Cap'n Crunch and King Vitaman cereal.

Don't you?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

JimFit said:
I mean this number doesn't show Fine Tuning to you?
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

No, why would it?

 

[RichardParker]

As I understand it, scientists gave us the species of banana we enjoy today.

Mr. Comfort's video is, to me, an example of how God gifts us scientists to make our lives more comfortable.

Yeah, right!
No matter how little anything humans do to make our life more comfortable, and no matter how little any supernatural, all powerfull entity seems to be...
Be asured, theists will find a way to assert god into the affair, and give him credit for it!

 

[JimFit]

JimFit said:
I mean this number doesn't show Fine Tuning to you?
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

No, why would it?

Because if you were in the casino and you won in a raw so many times you would wonder if the game is staged.

 

[JimFit]

Yeah, right!
No matter how little anything humans do to make our life more comfortable, and no matter how little any supernatural, all powerfull entity seems to be...
Be asured, theists will find a way to assert god into the affair, and give him credit for it!

Let me teach you a story, once upon a time Science was not for everyone, only rich men could educate themselves and only them could be Scientists all the others didn't had time, they worked on the fields as slaves, that continued until Jesus Christ came to earth to teach us the Truth of Man which back then wasn't granted, the Truth of Man is that all the humans are equal, there are no slaves, no lower people, everyone was created by God equal even women! This idea was so radical back then that Christians were persecuted. if you said that Cesar is equal with the rest of us it was suicide. The truth of Christianity about love, forgiveness, mercy, humility, patience, justice, peace, equality, charity won the false beliefs of paganism and Christianity became the official religion. The Emperor Justinian had to change the Roman Laws to fit into the Christian Teachings, based on Christian Equality he created the State of Law which means Public Education, Public Universities, Public Libraries, Public Health System, Public Funds, Public Buildings, abolish of slavery and right for women, that's how Science flourished! So yes if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God you accept that Science as Public is a gift from God.

No matter what Science says about the Universe Atheists try to assert Infinity into the affair, first there was the Eternal Universe, when the Big Bang was established as fact they moved to Eternal Steady State theory, after Eternal Steady State theory was debunked they moved to Eternal Inflation, after Eternal Inflation was debunked by BVG Theorem they moved to quantum fluctuations but even them are shaking, as Vinkelin pointed out these fluctuations are not strong enough to be past Eternal. What else atheists have to support their Naturalism? Absolute Nothing!

All the evidence points out that the cause of the Universe was transcendental and it doesn't matter if it was Mindless transcendental cause or a Transcendent Mind, the point is this, Materialism is dead.

Of course Atheism doesn't care about the progress of Science, if Atheism is true and the Universe is Eternal there is no way to be understood as there is no beginning and no end but if the physical Universe is Finite then humans have a chance to understand the Universe around them so Theism compared to Atheism gives at least a hope that we will understand the Universe compared to Naturalism and the wishful thinking that the Universe is Eternal.

Theism Compared To Atheistic Materialism, which one should be rejected as a valid scientific hypothesis?

1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.


2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.


3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. -


4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) -


5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (M. Denton).-


6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). -


7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. -


8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) -


9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. -


10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. -


11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo&#8217 is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–


12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. -


13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) -


14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.


15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.

 

[Eudaimonist]

More copy-paste?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RichardParker]

1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed.

No.

2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence.

Depends.
If you mean with the universe just this "universe", then no, this is also wrong.
If you mean by "universe"="everything that exists", than no. This statement is also wrong.

3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality.

Yes, that would be true.
And you know what we have figured out so far: Consciousness, as far as we can tell, IS an emergent property of something material (our brain). So, in that case, the evidence is actually in support of the naturalistic position.

4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe.

No. Why would materialism predict that? There is no requirment for materialists to ever believe or having believed that time has to be constant.

Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) -

Good one!
To claim that these verses describe special relativitiy is... wow! I hope you are kidding!
Man, I can find parts in the "Lord of the Rings", that I can twist into "describing" special relativitiy!
Come on!

5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance.

Nope.

6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common.

Nope.

Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe.

Yep, and you are wrong. By now, we know of a fair number of planets only in the visible parts of the universe that have similar conditions as earth.

7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11).

...and it all happend in six days.
Yes, all this has been falsified.

8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple.

Yes, and theism predicted that complex life poofed into existence out of nothing.
And you know what: The evidence shows that life actually started out simple, and became more complex.
I mean, that actually isn't a necessary prediction of naturalism AGAIN... but yeah...

9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.

Yes...
OVER A COUPLE OF MILLION YEARS!!!!!
So... yeah, a pretty strong blow to your position, isn't it?
I don't think I have to make my point, you make them well for me!

10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record.

Yep, and the fact that we have millions of these transitions by now pretty much defeat your entire position, I would say.


I don't have time to go through your other false example of "what naturalism predicts".
Actually, none of these things are really things "naturalism" predicts. Some of these models you describe here are in fact models on a naturalistic (scientific) basis... but even if all of them turned out to be false, you still wouldn't even be a step closer of demonstrating anything supernatural... which would be the only way you'd actually could make a case for your claims of anything supernatural.

 

[JimFit]

No.

Yeap

Depends.
If you mean with the universe just this "universe", then no, this is also wrong.
If you mean by "universe"="everything that exists", than no. This statement is also wrong.

This universe is dependent on a non-local, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory -- ScienceDaily

Yes, that would be true.
And you know what we have figured out so far: Consciousness, as far as we can tell, IS an emergent property of something material (our brain). So, in that case, the evidence is actually in support of the naturalistic position.

No you "haven't" figured out that, you are lying, there is no theory, not even a hypothesis that supports that Brain=Consciousness.

Only brain exists, Consciousness is an illusion

• Cogito ergo sum. I have conscious experiences. Even if these experiences (including the feeling of being the subject of conscious expriences) are illusions, I am still experiencing these illusions. Therefore consciousness exists – even if all other apparent conscious beings in the universe would be philosophical zombies (that is, beings that act rational, but lack conscious experience).
• If consciousness exists, there is ‘mind’. This rules out orthodox materialist monism (the notion that there is only matter, and that mind is an illusion).
• Caveat: I can only falsify this for myself, because I cannot with certainty claim anyone else has conscious experiences. Vice versa, you cannot verify my conscious experiences, so you should not believe my claim, but base your evaluation on your own conscious experience (or lack thereof).

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness -- ScienceDaily

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkedayxjWvg

Now prove me that you are a philosophical zombie.

No. Why would materialism predict that? There is no requirment for materialists to ever believe or having believed that time has to be constant.

Materialism DID predict that, i am talking about the Materialism of the 30s.

Good one!
To claim that these verses describe special relativitiy is... wow! I hope you are kidding!
Man, I can find parts in the "Lord of the Rings", that I can twist into "describing" special relativitiy!
Come on!

First of all i am not claiming that the Bible can be used as a Science book, the Old Testament describes the world with a poetic language, it was not meant to teach you science but to preach the love of God through His Creation, today we still write poems and they are based on historical figures, historical events and so on, these verses is just that, a glorified version of the creation, it is really in the eye of the beholder to see the world as it is.

The Lord of the Rings is an abstract paradigm, first we live in this earth and the Bible was written about this earth, Lord of the Rings was written about the Middle earth, i can say the same for you the atheists, you believe that something can come from nothingness therefor Harry Potter is real.

fun fact J.R.R. Tolkien loved the Bible ans was influenced by the Bible

Nope.

Yeap

Nope.

Yeap

Yep, and you are wrong. By now, we know of a fair number of planets only in the visible parts of the universe that have similar conditions as earth.

No they have not similar conditions, every planet that "looks like" earth that have found couldn't sustain life for different reasons, if Scientists haven't found how life started they can't tell where life can flourish.

...and it all happend in six days.
Yes, all this has been falsified.

Time is in the eye of the beholder

Is Time an Illusion? - Scientific American

Yes, and theism predicted that complex life poofed into existence out of nothing.
And you know what: The evidence shows that life actually started out simple, and became more complex.
I mean, that actually isn't a necessary prediction of naturalism AGAIN... but yeah...

Here we can start an endless discussion...what do to mean by complex?
What do you mean by ex nilho creation of animals?

Slime Mold is brainless, it doesn't have neurons but it can make decisions something that it was thought to happen only in complex structured brains like the human brain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lls27hu03yw

Yes...
OVER A COUPLE OF MILLION YEARS!!!!!
So... yeah, a pretty strong blow to your position, isn't it?
I don't think I have to make my point, you make them well for me!

Creation Days in the Bible aren't mean to taken literaly and we Orthodox Christians say that from the 1st century AD. But what time really is? If galaxies were conscious they would measure time depending on them, etc 1 million years for us would be 1 day for them, just like one month for a fly seems like a lifetime.

Yep, and the fact that we have millions of these transitions by now pretty much defeat your entire position, I would say.

Nahh

Evolution May Happen Faster Than We Think: A Study : Animals : Nature World News