• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Usus Vox Tractus, Aug 17, 2014.

  1. Mainframes

    Mainframes Regular Member

    595
    +11
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    Same question on this thread:

    To prove fine tuning you need to show that laws and constants have been altered from their original values. Can you do this?
     
  2. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    Which is exactly what you are attempting to do. You are making the claim that the universe existing is too improbable.

    Again, you fail to understand how analogies are used.

    I have. Random sequences produce functional RNA molecules.

    You still fail to understand how analogies are used.


    How many times have criminologists found that a deity caused anything to happen?
     
  3. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    You need to support this claim before inserting it into the premises.
     
  4. JimFit

    JimFit Newbie

    359
    +0
    Christian
    In Relationship
    That doesn't answer why the Universe exists, it just ends the argument on the beginning of the Universe.



    Scientists are not deities.



    You said it, Fine Tuner, the Fine Tuning exists therefor there must be a Tuner, Chance or Physical Necessity can't help you.

    The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
    for Intelligent Life

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


    I am not a Catholic and since God exists there was not Nothing.


    I can look around and see the Universe, i have the live proof of a Creation around me. The Universe is not Chaotic and Eternal to remove a Creator neither could popped out of Nothingness like magic.
     
  5. JimFit

    JimFit Newbie

    359
    +0
    Christian
    In Relationship
    You need to support the claim that the Universe is Eternal or it popped out of Nothingness.
     
  6. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +734
    Baptist
    Married
    Everything in science can't be tested directly. As someone's example just because he never played Roger Federer in tennis doesn't mean no one can figured out the outcome between him and Federer.
     
  7. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,000
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    So, please take moment and highlight that part about the evidence.

    Based on Bayesian analysis, we have an example of a universe, so probability is 1. Also based on Bayesian analysis, we have no prior of a god/s. So, what was that you were saying about gods and randomness again?
     
  8. JimFit

    JimFit Newbie

    359
    +0
    Christian
    In Relationship
    The Universe exists because Someone made it. There is no Gamblers Fallacy here, Gamblers Fallacy is for the people that say that in a million lotto tickets there will be a winner and they forget that sometimes even million people can't guess the lucky number.



    I understand just fine, its the argument of chance that i have debunked thousands of times here.


    Still not a clue for what the article is saying, please read it again.



    I understand just fine, your delusional lotto machine also needs fine tuning to choose numbers and not kitties.


    You still fail to understand that your Mind doesn't differ from God's Mind, it is just not perfect as God's Mind because your arrogance doesn't let you to be perfect.

    Now prove me that you are a Cosmic Mistake without purpose or free will that Nothingness spewed.
    Prove me that Chance exists.
    Prove me that Randomness exists.
    Prove me that Boltzmann Brains exists.
    Prove me that Materialism and Reductionism are right.
    Prove me that the Universe is Eternal.
    Prove me that something out of Nothing can happen just like it happens on the Harry Potter Universe.

    Since Science works with Determinism it points to Transcendence as the cause of the Universe because you must first have to set the line of Dominoes to cause the first one to fell to reach the last one, the difference between God and us is that he didn't had to build the line of Dominoes, He is Omniscient so he knew what the first cause must be to have humans.
     
  9. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    Where have you shown any evidence that a deity caused the Universe to exist?

    Where is your evidence demonstrating that God created anything?

    Where is your evidence for fine tuning?

    Where is your evidence that God created anything?

    Where is your evidence that God created the creation around you?
     
  10. JimFit

    JimFit Newbie

    359
    +0
    Christian
    In Relationship
    The odds of this universe existing are 1 in 1 okay? This doesn't explain if it was intention or randomness, the fact that i woke up this morning and there was breakfast on the table was 1:1 but the breakfast wasn't made by itself, someone made it and put it there.
     
  11. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    Based on what evidence?

    Once again, your argument is that the universe is too improbable, therefore GOd had to do it. You are the one arguing chance.

    And you duck the science once again.

    You fail to understand the analogy once again.

    Still shifting the burden of proof, I see.

    You are the one who claims that God created the Universe. Where is your evidence?
     
  12. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    Where is your evidence that God created the Universe?
     
  13. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,000
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    And turtles all the way down? Suppose we just act like grown ups and admit we don't know?
     
  14. Mainframes

    Mainframes Regular Member

    595
    +11
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    So you basically what you're saying is that you can't support your claim of fine tuning in any way.
     
  15. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +11,562
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Has anyone ever been able to?
     
  16. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +734
    Baptist
    Married
    It's not my claim but I have read enough to understand the fine tune argument.
     
  17. Mainframes

    Mainframes Regular Member

    595
    +11
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    So what is the evidence of the changes made in the tuning process?
     
  18. JimFit

    JimFit Newbie

    359
    +0
    Christian
    In Relationship
    The Creator of a machine is not a deity, i have a Mind, its not something mystical, something from nothing is mystical.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV2E41Q6OvY

    I don't have the Evidence that Iktinos and Kallikrattis built the Parthenon but i know it was built and it was not a random mistake.

    Here it is

    The fine-tuning argument
    The argument goes like this:

    1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
    2. It is not due to law or chance
    3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design
    What does it meaning to be fine-tuned for life?
    Here are the facts on the fine-tuning:

    • Life has certain minimal requirements; long-term stable source of energy, a large number of different chemical elements, an element that can serve as a hub for joining together other elements into compounds, etc.
    • In order to meet these minimal requirements, the physical constants, (such as the gravitational constant), and the ratios between physical constants, need to be withing a narrow range of values in order to support the minimal requirements for life of any kind.
    • Slight changes to any of the physical constants, or to the rations between the constants, will result in a universe inhospitable to life.
    • The range of possible ranges over 70 orders of magnitude.
    • The constants are selected by whoever creates the universe. They are not determined by physical laws. And the extreme probabilities involved required put the fine-tuning beyond the reach of chance.
    • Although each individual selection of constants and ratios is as unlikely as any other selection, the vast majority of these possibilities do not support the minimal requirements of life of any kind. (In the same way as any hand of 5 cards that is dealt is as likely as any other, but you are overwhelmingly likely NOT to get a royal flush. In our case, a royal flush is a life-permitting universe).
    Examples of finely-tuned constants


    Here are a couple of examples of the fine-tuning. Craig only gave one example in the debate and didn’t explain how changes to the constant would affect the minimal requirements for life. But Bradley does explain it, and he is a professional research scientist, so he is speaking about things he worked in his polymer research lab. (He was the director)
    a) The strong force: (the force that binds nucleons (= protons and neutrons) together in nucleus, by means of meson exchange)

    • if the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no hydrogen containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
    • if the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.
    • So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars than can serve as long-term sources of stable energy, or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to make beings that can perform the minimal requirements of living beings. (see below)
    b) The conversion of beryllium to carbon, and carbon to oxygen


    • Life requires carbon in order to serve as the hub for complex molecules, but it also requires oxygen in order to create water.
    • Carbon is like the hub wheel in a tinker toy set: you can bind other elements together to more complicated molecules (e.g. – “carbon-based life), but the bonds are not so tight that they can’t be broken down again later to make something else.
    • The carbon resonance level is determined by two constants: the strong force and electromagnetic force.
    • If you mess with these forces even slightly, you either lose the carbon or the oxygen.
    Either way, you’ve got no life of any conceivable kind.
    Is the fine-tuning real?
    Yes, it’s real and it is conceded by the top-rank of atheist physicists. Let me give you a citation from the best one of all, Martin Rees. Martin Rees is an atheist and a qualified astronomer. He wrote a book called “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe”, (Basic Books: 2001). In it, he discusses 6 numbers that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe.
    Rees writes here:
    These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?
    There are some atheists who deny the fine-tuning, but these atheists are in firm opposition to the progress of science. The more science has progressed, the more constants, ratios and quantities we have discovered that need to be fine-tuned. Science is going in a theistic direction. Next, let’s see how atheists try to account for the fine-tuning, on atheism.


    Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument


    There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.
    The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e. – the gambler’s fallacy). All these other universes don’t support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.
    Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
    Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
    The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non[bless and do not curse]religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
    The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.
    Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).
    …maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation… observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.
    So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past.


    Why the fine-tuning argument matters


    We need to make a decision today about how we are going to live. The evidence available today supports the fine-tuning of the universe by a supernatural mind with immense power. The progress of science has strengthened this theory against determined opposition from rival naturalistic theories.
    Those are the facts, and we must all choose what to do with them.

    Further study


    Here is a paper by Walter L. Bradley that contains many more examples of the fine-tuning, and explanations for what happens when you change the constants, quantities and rations even slightly.

    Here is a paper by Luke A. Barnes that contains many more examples of the fine-tuning.

    Here is a paper by Robin Collins about the Fine Tuning of the Discoverability

    You still imply a Creator when you say creation. Creation is something that was intended to be happen, i mean we don't say that tornadoes created in pieces the houses that were on its way.



    Creation = Creator

    It is like asking where is the evidence that the car was driven by a driver.

    Please prove me that the Universe is a random mistake.
     
  19. JimFit

    JimFit Newbie

    359
    +0
    Christian
    In Relationship
    I proved that the world was intended to be made, you haven't proved that it was a Random mistake that popped out of Nothingness assembled itself through randomness and we are here by Luck. You don't have to see the architect to recognize a structure.
     
  20. JimFit

    JimFit Newbie

    359
    +0
    Christian
    In Relationship
    The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem states that any universe, which has, on average, a rate of expansion greater 1 that system had to have a finite beginning. This would apply in any multiverse scenario as well.

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

    Did the Universe broke the rule and didn't need a cause? Please prove something from absolute Nothingness.
     
Loading...