A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[JimFit]

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?

Pure stupidity...i don't think you understand the Fine Tuning argument.

Please prove us that we are cosmic mistakes without purpose and free will that nothingness spewed.

 

[JimFit]

And turtles all the way down? Suppose we just act like grown ups and admit we don't know?

The turtles all the way down argument is used by Atheists, its called past eternal chain of cause and effect. God doesn't have to be caused to exist.

 

[Mainframes]

Pure stupidity...i don't think you understand the Fine Tuning argument.

Please prove us that we are cosmic mistakes without purpose and free will that nothingness spewed.

Whoever said that we were mistakes without purpose and free will. I have purpose and free will, do you?

Again, back to the question at hand.

The fine tuning arguement is that laws and constants have been set so that life can arise in the universe. How do you know that these laws and constants needed to be set to the correct figures?

Why can they not just have been what was needed naturally?

 

[JimFit]

Based on what evidence?

Was your house built from a tornado?

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

Once again, your argument is that the universe is too improbable, therefore CHANCE had to do it. Where is your proof that chance even exists? I know intention exists, i have intention, where is chance in this Universe?

And you duck the science once again.

LOL! Okay lets destroy your wishful argument.


From the article

If these results can be extrapolated to the binding of the transition states of chemical transformations, it is likely that a wide range of RNA catalysts might be found in pools of random sequence RNA molecules...


The article exists from 2009, until now Jack and Andrew are silent.

You fail to understand the analogy once again.

Lotto Machines can draw only numbers, a Physical Universe draws only something from something and not something from nothing, therefor your lottery machine is broken, a lottery machine can't create letters to draw.

Still shifting the burden of proof, I see.

Since you are a believer of Nothingness Randomness and Luck (Atheist) i supose that you have proof about your beliefs, please present them.

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

Evidence for Intention? The Fine Tuning. Oh you don't accept it? Too bad the Cosmologists, the Astrophysics and the Physics accept it and they are not even Theists.

Wilczek: life appears to depend upon delicate coincidences that we have not been able to explain. The broad outlines of that situation have been apparent for many decades. When less was known, it seemed reasonable to hope that better understanding of symmetry and dynamics would clear things up. Now that hope seems much less reasonable. The happy coincidences between life’s requirements and nature’s choices of parameter values might be just a series of flukes, but one could be forgiven for beginning to suspect that something deeper is at work.
Hawking: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. … The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it.”
Rees: Any universe hospitable to life – what we might call a biophilic universe – has to be ‘adjusted’ in a particular way. The prerequisites for any life of the kind we know about — long-lived stable stars, stable atoms such as carbon, oxygen and silicon, able to combine into complex molecules, etc — are sensitive to the physical laws and to the size, expansion rate and contents of the universe. Indeed, even for the most open-minded science fiction writer, ‘life’ or ‘intelligence’ requires the emergence of some generic complex structures: it can’t exist in a homogeneous universe, not in a universe containing only a few dozen particles. Many recipes would lead to stillborn universes with no atoms, no chemistry, and no planets; or to universes too short-lived or too empty to allow anything to evolve beyond sterile uniformity.
Linde: the existence of an amazingly strong correlation between our own properties and the values of many parameters of our world, such as the masses and charges of electron and proton, the value of the gravitational constant, the amplitude of spontaneous symmetry breaking in the electroweak theory, the value of the vacuum energy, and the dimensionality of our world, is an experimental fact requiring an explanation.
Susskind: The Laws of Physics … are almost always deadly. In a sense the laws of nature are like East Coast weather: tremendously variable, almost always awful, but on rare occasions, perfectly lovely. … [O]ur own universe is an extraordinary place that appears to be fantastically well designed for our own existence. This specialness is not something that we can attribute to lucky accidents, which is far too unlikely. The apparent coincidences cry out for an explanation.
Guth: in the multiverse, life will evolve only in very rare regions where the local laws of physics just happen to have the properties needed for life, giving a simple explanation for why the observed universe appears to have just the right properties for the evolution of life. The incredibly small value of the cosmological constant is a telling example of a feature that seems to be needed for life, but for which an explanation from fundamental physics is painfully lacking.
Smolin: Our universe is much more complex than most universes with the same laws but different values of the parameters of those laws. In particular, it has a complex astrophysics, including galaxies and long lived stars, and a complex chemistry, including carbon chemistry. These necessary conditions for life are present in our universe as a consequence of the complexity which is made possible by the special values of the parameters.
Guess who?: The most commonly cited examples of apparent fine-tuning can be readily explained by the application of a little well-established physics and cosmology. . . . ome form of life would have occurred in most universes that could be described by the same physical models as ours, with parameters whose ranges varied over ranges consistent with those models. … . My case against fine-tuning will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes.
​

 

[freezerman2000]

How can anything that is so chaotic be finely tuned?

 

[Loudmouth]

The Creator of a machine is not a deity, i have a Mind, its not something mystical, something from nothing is mystical.

Where is your evidence that anything was created by a deity?

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

1. 
   
   Evidence for this claim, please.
   
   

   [*]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.

   
   Evidence for this claim, please.
   
   

   You still imply a Creator when you say creation.

   
   Since when? Thunderclouds create lightning. It is an entirely natural process.
   
   

   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.

   
   We do say that natural processes create tornadoes.
   
   

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

   
   I would show you the evidence for car factories, evidence for tool marks on the cars, etc.
   
   No such evidence exists for life.
   
   

   Please prove me that the Universe is a random mistake.

   
   Now you are shifting the burden of proof. So predictable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Was your house built from a tornado?

My house wasn't built by a deity. I was created through very natural processes. Have you been taught about the birds and the bees?

Where is your proof that chance even exists?

Once again, you try to shift the burden of proof.

Where is the evidence for a creator deity?

LOL! Okay lets destroy your wishful argument.


From the article

If these results can be extrapolated to the binding of the transition states of chemical transformations, it is likely that a wide range of RNA catalysts might be found in pools of random sequence RNA molecules...

They found those those RNA catalysts.

"Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation."
Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases d... [Science. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

Random RNA sequences have functional ligase activity.

Lotto Machines can draw only numbers, a Physical Universe draws only something from something and not something from nothing, therefor your lottery machine is broken, a lottery machine can't create letters to draw.

Once again, you fail to understand the basics of how analogies are used.

Since you are a believer of Nothingness Randomness and Luck (Atheist) i supose that you have proof about your beliefs, please present them.

I don't know how our universe got started. You are the one making a positive claim. It is up to you to support it.

Evidence for Intention? The Fine Tuning. Oh you don't accept it? Too bad the Cosmologists, the Astrophysics and the Physics accept it and they are not even Theists.

None of them accept that the constants were fine tuned by a deity.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Has anyone ever been able to?

I have, several times and posted the mathematical model that proves it.

 

[bhsmte]

I have, several times and posted the mathematical model that proves it.

That reminds me.

How is your work going with that physicist that was reviewing your ideas?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

How can anything that is so chaotic be finely tuned?

Chaos? When's the last time you were thrown from the planet because gravity had a hiccup? When's the last time you passed through through the ground because electromagnetism took a vacation?

What we have is a specifically tuned environment (universe) that specifically creates not only the environment for but the stuff of life itself.

Atomic reality is perfectly tuned as is the quantum field that gives rise to it. Just because you run into a great deal of choices at your scale of existence doesn't mean the entire rest of the universe above and below your current level of perception is orderless.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

That reminds me.

How is your work going with that physicist that was reviewing your ideas?

No further responses. I figure I've been Schrodinger cat-fished. I've moved on to a unified physics group of about 1000 from all over the world.

I aspire to an m.o. of simply not stopping.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The turtles all the way down argument is used by Atheists, its called past eternal chain of cause and effect. God doesn't have to be caused to exist.

Special Pleading.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Pure stupidity...i don't think you understand the Fine Tuning argument.

I think you don't understand what the word "tuning" means.

Please prove us that we are cosmic mistakes without purpose and free will that nothingness spewed.

There's so much wrong with that sentence, I don't even know where to begin.

Anyway, ignoring the embedded falsehoods, nobody is going to give you a summary of the past 300 years worth of work by the entire scientific aparatus, in a forum post.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The turtles all the way down argument is used by Atheists, its called past eternal chain of cause and effect.

Causality is a phenomena of the space-time continuum and its past is exactly the same age as the space-time continuum in which it applies.

God doesn't have to be caused to exist.

Why not?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since when? Thunderclouds create lightning. It is an entirely natural process.

Thor is not amused!

 

[JimFit]

Whoever said that we were mistakes without purpose and free will. I have purpose and free will, do you?

Again, back to the question at hand.

The fine tuning arguement is that laws and constants have been set so that life can arise in the universe. How do you know that these laws and constants needed to be set to the correct figures?

Why can they not just have been what was needed naturally?

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.

 

[JimFit]

How can anything that is so chaotic be finely tuned?

Chaos wasn't detected.

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JimFit]

Where is your evidence that anything was created by a deity?

Creators have intention and intention is part of conscious beings and not mindless processes. The only difference you have with God's Mind is that he is Omniscience.

Evidence for this claim, please.

That it is not due to chance or necessity?

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.

Chance?

​

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning is due to 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.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.

Evidence for this claim, please.

The proof is that intelligent life exists. This argument relies on our existence.

Since when? Thunderclouds create lightning. It is an entirely natural process.

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.

We do say that natural processes create tornadoes.

But not Universes

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.

I would show you the evidence for car factories, evidence for tool marks on the cars, etc.

No such evidence exists for life.

There is, its called Consciousness, do you imply that rocks are alive?

Now you are shifting the burden of proof. So predictable.

Since you are an atheist Design doesn't exist for you so its either chance or physical necessity, i destroyed both.

 

[JimFit]

My house wasn't built by a deity. I was created through very natural processes. Have you been taught about the birds and the bees?

No it was created by a conscious being, its called Architect, are Architects unconscious now? Bees and Birds are conscious as well, only conscious beings can create, come back when rocks starting to build houses.

Once again, you try to shift the burden of proof.

Where is the evidence for a creator deity?

Only Minds can create, stop referring to the Universe as a Creation, an atheist thinks the Universe as a random cosmic mistake!

They found those those RNA catalysts.

"Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation."
Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases d... [Science. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

Random RNA sequences have functional ligase activity.

The problem here is that there is no Randomness, something truly random doesn't have a structure. RNA is a structure.

Once again, you fail to understand the basics of how analogies are used.

Why?

I don't know how our universe got started. You are the one making a positive claim. It is up to you to support it.

The argument is that the Universe WAS INTENDED to happen and it is not a random mistake. Fine Tuning proves intention and not chance.

None of them accept that the constants were fine tuned by a deity.

God didn't had to "Fine Tune" anything. He is Omniscience He knew already what the first cause must be to unfold intelligent life, most of these Scientists believe chance or physical necessity, there is no other way to get rid of the Fine Tuning. They could easily refute it but they didn't.

 

[JimFit]

Special Pleading.

God is Eternal, if He was not Eternal He wouldn't be God. I know Eternal Nothingness or Eternal past chain of events are more reasonable to you but they don't exist.