A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[ThinkForYourself]

...
No one taught me to see color as no one taught me to see design.

You believe recognizing design is instinctual?

Again I would ask you to provide evidence for this.

 

[bhsmte]

You believe recognizing design is instinctual?

Again I would ask you to provide evidence for this.

More like psychological.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

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


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

He also believed that first life on Earth began in space:

(From wikipedia)
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis used to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the hypothesis that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.

So apparently he isn't buying the God hypothesis.


A further note, he had some controversial views on a number of scientific issues (also from wikipedia):

In addition to his views on steady state theory and panspermia, Hoyle also supported the following claims:

1. The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle, with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the solar wind had minimum power.
2. The fossil Archaeopteryx was a man-made fake.[31] This assertion was definitively refuted by, among other strong indications, the presence of microcracks extending through the fossil into the surrounding rock.
3. The theory of abiogenic petroleum, where natural hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are explained as the result of deep carbon deposits, instead of fossilized organic material. "The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
4. The use of the fifty-six Aubrey holes at Stonehenge as a system for the neolithic Britons to predict eclipses, using them in the daily positioning of marker stones (a theoretically possible, but practically impossible[citation needed] system) as proposed in his 1977 book On Stonehenge. It should be noted that the use of the Aubrey holes for predicting lunar eclipses was originally proposed by Gerald Hawkins whose book of the subject Stonehenge Decoded (1965) predates Hoyle's.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

He also believed that first life on Earth began in space:

(From wikipedia)
In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis used to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the hypothesis that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.

So apparently he isn't buying the God hypothesis.


A further note, he had some controversial views on a number of scientific issues (also from wikipedia):

In addition to his views on steady state theory and panspermia, Hoyle also supported the following claims:

1. The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle, with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the solar wind had minimum power.
2. The fossil Archaeopteryx was a man-made fake.[31] This assertion was definitively refuted by, among other strong indications, the presence of microcracks extending through the fossil into the surrounding rock.
3. The theory of abiogenic petroleum, where natural hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are explained as the result of deep carbon deposits, instead of fossilized organic material. "The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time."
4. The use of the fifty-six Aubrey holes at Stonehenge as a system for the neolithic Britons to predict eclipses, using them in the daily positioning of marker stones (a theoretically possible, but practically impossible[citation needed] system) as proposed in his 1977 book On Stonehenge. It should be noted that the use of the Aubrey holes for predicting lunar eclipses was originally proposed by Gerald Hawkins whose book of the subject Stonehenge Decoded (1965) predates Hoyle's.

I'm concerned with the science, not the man.

Not that it matters but I believe DNA forms in interstellar nebular clouds due to saturation of organic molecules, circumpolarised light from stars and the peculiar tendency for plasma crystal clouds of inert dust to form a double helix with rungs when cryogenically cooled in zero G.

Watch @ 4:03 in vid at link: Copacetic Funky Plasma Crystal Study | Anacephalaeosis


I have found a specific geometric relationship of supra-symmetric, divided space-times that directly predicts this DNA structure. It is the specifc Image of God that the universe is contained in and vibrated constantly and consistently by.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I'm concerned with the science, not the man.

Agreed.

Not that it matters but I believe DNA forms in interstellar nebular clouds due to saturation of organic molecules, circumpolarised light from stars and the peculiar tendency for plasma crystal clouds of inert dust to form a double helix with rungs when cryogenically cooled in zero G.

Watch @ 4:03 in vid at link: Copacetic Funky Plasma Crystal Study | Anacephalaeosis


I have found a specific geometric relationship of supra-symmetric, divided space-times that directly predicts this DNA structure. It is the specifc Image of God that the universe is contained in and vibrated constantly and consistently by.

That's nice.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Agreed.



That's nice.

Yes it is nice when logical theories and geometric models line up with evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

The lottery argument is gamblers fallacy at its best,

I am using the lottery analogy to show how you are commiting the gambler's fallacy.

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.

Do we need an eternal lottery ticket machine in order to get a winner? Nope.

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%.

Now you are completely off course. You have failed to understand the analogy.

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

I am sure that I have. It describes functional RNA enzymes produced from random RNA sequences. RNA enzymes fill the same role as proteins.

What’s the difference between your existence and a lotto draw? The difference is the existence of an independently specified target or pattern.

You haven't shown that a target or pattern was specified prior to the emergence of our universe. You are only specifying the target AFTER the emergence of our universe and life. That is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

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.

That is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

I could just as easily say that since you have not shown any evidence that God was involved, that this lack of evidence indicates a natural process. Both of us would be wrong, and for the same reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Yes, you can. Scientists observe and measure spectra of non-visible light all of the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

What color are X-rays? If you can't see them, do X-rays not exist?

What color are radiowaves?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Not knowing how life began does not evidence God. That's the point. Even more, not knowing how life began does not stop us from understanding how life changed once it was here.

 

[MikeCarra]

What color are X-rays?

X-colored. (That was easy! Think of this way: what color is blue light? It's blue...red light, red)

What color are radiowaves?

radio-colored.

Geezly! These are too easy! Gimme a harder one!

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

What color are X-rays? If you can't see them, do X-rays not exist?

What color are radiowaves?

Ask a mantis shrimp.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ask a mantis shrimp.

The claim was made that it is impossible to prove the existence of light that we can't see. We can't see x-ray or radiowave light, and yet the existence of this light is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. How can this be?

 

[Loudmouth]

X-colored. (That was easy! Think of this way: what color is blue light? It's blue...red light, red)



radio-colored.

Geezly! These are too easy! Gimme a harder one!

I know, right? I still see posts from christians who claim that God is like the wind, in that science can't prove that they exist. It's as if they have zero imagination, and have never heard of an anemometer.

 

[JimFit]

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

That's the argument of chance.
The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds, of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!

​

So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-...god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmology#_ftn21 Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.

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

Hm...therefor Unicorns can happen...lol Something that does happen depends on the laws, you can't expect something from nothing to happen, etc suddenly to have a hot chick appear out of nothing. Your arguments are ridiculous.

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

I already said that neither chance neither necessity help you.

Now you know God is infinite?

Because He is God Daaah...

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

The proof of a Creator is His Creation, His Creation is Deterministic, Homogeneous and Fine Tuned to create and sustain intelligent life, just like a ball machine is Fine Tuned to create balls. To deny this you must present evidence that the Physical Universe popped out of Nothingness (or it existed eternally), assembled itself through Randomness and we are here by Luck. The last time i checked my Science Books these 3 didn't exist as Scientific.

 

[HitchSlap]

The proof of a Creator is His Creation...

This would be a good place to insert any evidence you may have to support this claim.

Please show your work.

 

[JimFit]

I am using the lottery analogy to show how you are commiting the gambler's fallacy.

Gamblers fallacy is for the people that use chance to prove their point.

Do we need an eternal lottery ticket machine in order to get a winner? Nope.

No but we need a Fine Tuned Machine that was made to choose a set of numbers once in a week. The Lotto numbers are a deterministic event that is is determined by the Lotto Machine, this machine doesn't choose words or hieroglyphics but only numbers because someone intended to have the lotto tickets only filled with numbers.

Now you are completely off course. You have failed to understand the analogy.

Why?

I am sure that I have. It describes functional RNA enzymes produced from random RNA sequences. RNA enzymes fill the same role as proteins.

Long story short you haven't read the article.

You haven't shown that a target or pattern was specified prior to the emergence of our universe. You are only specifying the target AFTER the emergence of our universe and life. That is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

You used the lottery argument, this lotto machine points to a winner only if he filled his ticket with numbers numbers and not etc with letters therefor there was a structure to have a winner. Also if an event is Deterministic it points to a structure, i don't think that a pregnant woman will ever give birth to a Dinosaur.

I could just as easily say that since you have not shown any evidence that God was involved, that this lack of evidence indicates a natural process. Both of us would be wrong, and for the same reason.

Criminologists use Science to understand if a crime was intended to happen or if it was an accident. Same here. I use Science that is neutral to questions about existence to prove you that the Universe was intended to happen and it was not an accident.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the argument of chance.
The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced.

That's the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. The odds of this universe existing are 1 in 1, because it exists.

In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of randomly ordered universes of which our universe is but a part. Now comes the key move: since observers can exist only in finely tuned worlds, of course we observe our universe to be fine-tuned!

You have no evidence for a deity creating anything, so no rescuing is needed.

So this explanation of fine-tuning relies on (i) the existence of a specific type of World Ensemble and (ii) an observer self-selection effect. Now this explanation, wholly apart from objections to (i), faces a very formidable objection to (ii), namely, the Boltzmann Brain problem. In order to be observable the entire universe need not be fine-tuned for our existence. Indeed, it is vastly more probable that a random fluctuation of mass-energy would yield a universe dominated by Boltzmann Brain observers than one dominated by ordinary observers like ourselves. In other words, the observer self-selection effect is explanatorily vacuous. As Robin Collins has noted, what needs to be explained is not just intelligent life, but embodied, interactive, intelligent agents like ourselves.http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-...god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmology#_ftn21 Appeal to an observer self-selection effect accomplishes nothing because there’s no reason whatever to think that most observable worlds or the most probable observable worlds are worlds in which that kind of observer exists. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true: most observable worlds will be Boltzmann Brain worlds.
Since we presumably are not Boltzmann Brains, that fact strongly disconfirms a naturalistic World Ensemble or multiverse hypothesis.

And still no evidence for a fine tuner.

Hm...therefor Unicorns can happen...lol Something that does happen depends on the laws, you can't expect something from nothing to happen, etc suddenly to have a hot chick appear out of nothing. Your arguments are ridiculous.

Humans appearing out of nothing is what creationists believe in, as in creatio ex nihilo.

The proof of a Creator is His Creation,

Your fallacy is "begging the question". You are inserting your conclusion in the premsies.

 

[JimFit]

This would be a good place to insert any evidence you may have to support this claim.

Please show your work.

A Creator is an intelligent conscious Mind that creates because He has intention to create (I think that we agree that intention exists only in intelligent conscious beings), since the Universe is not a Random Mistake and couldn't be created by itself it points to a Transcendental cause, does this Transcendental cause demands a Mind? Yes because it was a Deterministic event and you can't have a Deterministic event from a Random Event when only Randomness exists, this is accepted also by atheists but insted of God they use the Multiverse Hypothesis, an eternal machine that creates Universes Randomly. The 2 choices that Atheists have are Chance and Physical Necessity. Physical necessity automatically is destroyed because BVG Theorem proved that the Universe demands a physical beginning and chance faces the Boltzmann Brain problem.

Now prove me that Randomness Nothingness and Luck exist.

 

[bhsmte]

A Creator is an intelligent conscious Mind that creates because He has intention to create (I think that we agree that intention exists only in intelligent conscious beings), since the Universe is not a Random Mistake and couldn't be created by itself it points to a Transcendental cause, does this Transcendental cause demands a Mind? Yes because it was a Deterministic event and you can't have a Deterministic event from a Random Event when only Randomness exists, this is accepted also by atheists but insted of God they use the Multiverse Hypothesis, an eternal machine that creates Universes Randomly. The 2 choices that Atheists have are Chance and Physical Necessity. Physical necessity automatically is destroyed because BVG Theorem proved that the Universe demands a physical beginning and chance faces the Boltzmann Brain problem.

Now prove me that Randomness Nothingness and Luck exist.

Still nothing objective to support your claims.

I have no problem with you believing that on faith though.