A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟15,489.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
It appears that you don't understand the probabilities. For the Powerball lottery, the chances that a specific person will win is 1 in 150 million which is very unlikely, at least in my book.

The lottery argument is gamblers fallacy at its best, first of all to win the lottery you must first participate and of course to create the lottery game with laws and rules for participation, again the Physical Universe had a beginning, it couldn't participate on something that didn't even exist. You must first have a Universe to create a lottery machine that pulls numbers from the physical Universe, even if the lottery argument was a serious argument it has the problem of eternal past physical causes, BVG Theorem destroys that argument. Even the lottery doesn't escape chance, imagine what it would take to create the lottery game by chance, the fact that you talk about lottery that pulls a specific number it means that your argument depends on Determinism, if we could measure the force of the balls and everything that influence the result it would be a Deterministic event. Scientists have built a machine that finds out the result of the coin flip by 99.9%.

A random walk of RNA molecules did result in functional RNA enzymes capable of filling the function of proteins.

20 In Vitro Selection of Functional RNA Sequences | Szostak | Cold Spring Harbor Monograph Archive

I am not sure you have read the article...


In the case of this discussion, we are only aware of one winner, and not how many tickets were sold. That is the point being made.

The winner must participate to the game to win.


The probability of the same person winning 5 in a row is the same as 5 different, but specific, people winning. That is the problem with the fine tuning argument, they are doing the calculations afterwards. They are painting the bull's eye around the bullet hole.

What’s the difference between your existence and a lotto draw? The difference is the existence of an independently specified target or pattern. Let each of the 14 million possible lotto predictions be represented by a ping-pong ball. Place all 14 million balls in a big bag, and shake well. Brown (apparently) reaches blindly into the bag and pulls out the one winning ball. Why is this amazing? It is not just that his ball is unlikely – any ball is unlikely. It is this low probability coupled with the fact that the winning ball is specified independently of Brown’s choice. While the balls are all still in the bag, one is a winner (independent of Brown’s choice) and the rest are losers. He didn’t just pick an unlikely ball; he picked the winning ball. He can’t pull out just any ball and proclaim: “I win”.
Now fill the bag with balls representing the vast number of possible outcomes of different egg-sperm combinations. The hand of fate goes into the bag and out you come. Why isn’t this anything special? Because there is nothing to single out this ball, improbable though it is, while it is still in the bag. We only know who “you” are after you come out of the bag. “You” are not specified independently of the choice of ball. Whatever ball comes out of the bag, the corresponding person can proclaim: “I win”. (In this game, you win by existing.) You can’t lose!
Let me illustrate the difference another way. I shoot an arrow at a huge wall, 100 metres away. When the impact zone is inspected, we find that the arrow has hit the centre of a small red spot. The probability of hitting this point on the wall is tiny. Am I a talented archer? It depends. If I proclaimed: “watch me hit that red spot” before firing the arrow, then I’m the new Robin Hood. However, if I shot the arrow and then took some red paint and painted the spot around my arrow’s impact point, then you can’t reach any conclusion about my archery skills.
So which of these cases does the fine-tuning of the universe resemble? Potential universes can be marked “intelligent life can/cannot live here” independently of the properties of the actual universe. This universe is not special because it is ours. It is special because it can support intelligent life. When we consider the fine-tuning of the universe, we are not considering the probability of this universe. We are considering the probability of a universe that supports intelligent life. Choose a different sperm, you get a different person. Choose a different universe, and you almost certainly do not get a different form of intelligent life. You get no intelligent life at all. The fine-tuning of the universe involves a low probability event and an independently specified target, and thus cannot be dismissed as just another low probability event.



What are the chances that our universe would emerge with the costants it has? 1 in 1. Why? Because it happened.

The problem here is that you can't prove a machine that creates Universes randomly therefor the Universe emerged because it was intended by God.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I am not sure you have read the article...


The winner must participate to the game to win.

Plus lotteries doesn't have 3-4 paradoxes to deal with like RNA world :
Steve Benner: We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA. There is a discontinuous model which has many pieces, many of which have experimental support, but we're up against these three or four paradoxes, which you and I have talked about in the past.
1)-The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar.
2)- If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.
3)-If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy.
4)-And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.
Steve Benner: Origins Soufflé, Texas-Style Suzan Mazur
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
...
Some atheist have trouble recognizing that lotteries are intelligent designed.
As Jones pointed out it has more to do with "purpose" than just the odds.

Smidlee, lotteries are intelligently designed. And we know the odds.

We do not know the odds that the constants are what they are. Tomorrow we may discover that the constants have to be what they are, no fine tuning required.

And even if the odds are ridiculously long, it still doesn't prove any god fine tuned the constants, let alone the god you happen to believe in.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Smidlee, lotteries are intelligently designed. And we know the odds.

We do not know the odds that the constants are what they are. Tomorrow we may discover that the constants have to be what they are, no fine tuning required.

And even if the odds are ridiculously long, it still doesn't prove any god fine tuned the constants, let alone the god you happen to believe in.

But it's more than just the odds as I pointed out. Who knows what we discover tomorrow yet that doesn't deal with the four known forces happen to be at the right strength for the universe to be possible. Now I do agree these four forces alone can't produce life ( including stars, planets, and galaxies) thus must require a creator. I think "life" is the better evidence pointing to the Creator than the fine-tuned argument.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
But it's more than just the odds as I pointed out. Who knows what we discover tomorrow yet that doesn't deal with the four known forces happen to be at the right strength for the universe to be possible.

What we learn tomorrow may very well tell us that the constants are required to be exactly what they are. Thus no fine tuning whatsoever would be required.

Now I do agree these four forces alone can't produce life ( including stars, planets, and galaxies) thus must require a creator. I think "life" is the better evidence pointing to the Creator than the fine-tuned argument.

How do you know what is required to create life?
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
What we learn tomorrow may very well tell us that the constants are required to be exactly what they are. Thus no fine tuning whatsoever would be required.
Or tomorrow Jesus Christ could call his church home.

How do you know what is required to create life?
By studying what is the minimum requirements known to us of a reproducing living cell.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
Or tomorrow Jesus Christ could call his church home.
Perfect answer! :thumbsup:

Giving the odds that constants are what they are is the same as giving the odds that Jesus will show up tomorrow.

By studying what is the minimum requirements known to us of a reproducing living cell.

The minimum requirement for reproducing life as we know it is that all the required atoms are present, and a form of energy is present. That requirement is met naturally.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The minimum requirement for reproducing life as we know it is that all the required atoms are present, and a form of energy is present. That requirement is met naturally.
That's like claiming all you need to watch a movie is a round plastic disc without any data on it and no DVD player.

Sounds like you believe in Frankencell which is loaded with wishful thinking.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
That's like claiming all you need to watch a movie is a round plastic disc without any data on it and no DVD player.

Sounds like you believe in Frankencell which is loaded with wishful thinking.

Huh? We were talking about minimum requirements.

The minimum requirements to make a watch are the atoms required to make the watch, and a form of energy (to convert the atoms into molecules, and shape the atoms and molecules into gears, case, etc.)
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Huh? We were talking about minimum requirements.

The minimum requirements to make a watch are the atoms required to make the watch, and a form of energy (to convert the atoms into molecules, and shape the atoms and molecules into gears, case, etc.)

We are not talking about a watch since it's not a self-replicating machine.

Engineering and the Ultimate: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Order and Design in Nature and Craft: Jonathan Bartlett, Dominic Halsmer, Mark Hall: 9780975283868: Amazon.com: Books

On page 210, we read, “The NASA REPRO study was the most exhaustive attempt to design a self-replicator, which estimated the replicator to weigh 100,000 tons (unfueled) and reproduce every 500 years.” The butterfly image on the front cover does not weigh 100,000 tons and does not take 500 years to reproduce. On page 217, we read these words of wisdom: “The belief that the laws of nature and any sequence of natural events and circumstances could have created a self-replicating cell does not have a rational foundation.”
I'm hoping there will be a Kindle version of this book
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist

Self replicating or not, the minimum requirements of a cell are the atoms required to make the cell, and an energy source to manipulate the atoms.

As for the NASA REPRO study, when was it done? Considering technological advances, the weight figures could be dropping substantially every year.

Even though we don't know how to make a self replicating cell, that doesn't prove God created life, it just means we don't know how.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Self replicating or not, the minimum requirements of a cell are the atoms required to make the cell, and an energy source to manipulate the atoms.

As for the NASA REPRO study, when was it done? Considering technological advances, the weight figures could be dropping substantially every year.

Even though we don't know how to make a self replicating cell, that doesn't prove God created life, it just means we don't know how.

Just in case you didn't know a dead person is made up of the same atoms as a living person so that in itself refute the idea all you need are atoms and a energy source. Take a guess what else is needed.
 
Upvote 0

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟15,489.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Self replicating or not, the minimum requirements of a cell are the atoms required to make the cell, and an energy source to manipulate the atoms.

As for the NASA REPRO study, when was it done? Considering technological advances, the weight figures could be dropping substantially every year.

Even though we don't know how to make a self replicating cell, that doesn't prove God created life, it just means we don't know how.

Ah the God of the gaps argument again...knowing how life began it doesn't prove that the Physical Universe is Eternal, it proves that everything is Deterministic and if it is Deterministic then the whole Universe was determined by something outside of it because it is finite. Set a line of Dominoes, each Domino falls as the cause of the previous Domino, that doesn't mean that the line of Dominoes is Eternal, you had to push the first Domino.
 
Upvote 0

JimFit

Newbie
May 24, 2012
359
1
✟15,489.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
We do not know the odds that the constants are what they are. Tomorrow we may discover that the constants have to be what they are, no fine tuning required.

Physical 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 even if the odds are ridiculously long, it still doesn't prove any god fine tuned the constants

It proves INTENTION! Intention exists only in conscious beings.

, let alone the god you happen to believe in.

God is a Creator, this is the description of God in EVERY religion, therefor this argument goes to garbage. If the Indians describe the properties of the electron the same as we do and call it Electran instead of Electron it means that there is a different electron? Of course not! God is one because He is Infinite, you can't use plural on something infinite, don't you understand that it is stupid?

Please change your name to IDontThinkForMyself...because you obsviously use the illogical paradoxes of other atheists.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
Just in case you didn't know a dead person is made up of the same atoms as a living person so that in itself refute the idea all you need are atoms and a energy source. Take a guess what else is needed.
Well, I can state with complete confidence that there is not a shred of evidence that you also need an intelligent creator.

If you have the evidence, please feel free to share it. You might also want to let the scientific community know, as you will almost certainly win a Nobel prize.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
Physical 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.

Again, you have no proof of what the true odds are that the constants are what they are.


It proves INTENTION! Intention exists only in conscious beings.

Because something unlikely happens does not prove intention. That is ridiculous.

Please tell me: At exactly what odds does something go from chance happenstance to proving intention?

God is a Creator, this is the description of God in EVERY religion, therefor this argument goes to garbage. If the Indians describe the properties of the electron the same as we do and call it Electran instead of Electron it means that there is a different electron? Of course not! God is one because He is Infinite, you can't use plural on something infinite, don't you understand that it is stupid?

Now you know God is infinite?

Please provide one piece of evidence that he exists, let alone is infinite.

Please change your name to IDontThinkForMyself...because you obsviously use the illogical paradoxes of other atheists.

All you've got left are personal attacks? You're not doing a very good job of defending your faith.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Well, I can state with complete confidence that there is not a shred of evidence that you also need an intelligent creator.

If you have the evidence, please feel free to share it. You might also want to let the scientific community know, as you will almost certainly win a Nobel prize.

Oh I do have evidence and share it all the time. I have evidence of a rainbow yet I can't prove to a blind man that they exist.
 
Upvote 0

ThinkForYourself

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
1,785
49
✟2,284.00
Faith
Atheist
Oh I do have evidence and share it all the time. I have evidence of a rainbow yet I can't prove to a blind man that they exist.

Sorry, but I haven't seen this evidence you share all the time. Could you please do it one more time, or provide a link to it? Thanks. :)

And you can prove to a blind man that rainbows exist. Physics and Math provide evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, but I haven't seen this evidence you share all the time. Could you please do it one more time, or provide a link to it? Thanks. :)

And you can prove to a blind man that rainbows exist. Physics and Math provide evidence.

I guess you never tried have you? I did once when I was young. The blind man told me quickly he knew and learn all there was about color and sight (In fact he said he read anything and everything he could get his hands on.) and he still how no idea how we could "see" someone from a distance wearing a red shirt and blue pants. Colors didn't exist to him no matter how hard I tried to explain it to him.
No one taught me to see color as no one taught me to see design.
 
Upvote 0