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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
And turtles all the way down? Suppose we just act like grown ups and admit we don't know?
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.
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 lifes requirements and natures 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 cant 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.
The Creator of a machine is not a deity, i have a Mind, its not something mystical, something from nothing is mystical.
Here it is
The fine-tuning argument
The argument goes like this:
- The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
- It is not due to law or chance
[*]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.
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.
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.
Was your house built from a tornado?
Where is your proof that chance even exists?
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...
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.
Since you are a believer of Nothingness Randomness and Luck (Atheist) i supose that you have proof about your beliefs, please present them.
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.
Has anyone ever been able to?
How can anything that is so chaotic be finely tuned?
That reminds me.
How is your work going with that physicist that was reviewing your ideas?
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.
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.
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.
Since when? Thunderclouds create lightning. It is an entirely natural process.
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?
How can anything that is so chaotic be finely tuned?
Where is your evidence that anything was created by a deity?
Evidence for this claim, please.
Evidence for this claim, please.
Since when? Thunderclouds create lightning. It is an entirely natural process.
We do say that natural processes create tornadoes.
I would show you the evidence for car factories, evidence for tool marks on the cars, etc.
No such evidence exists for life.
Now you are shifting the burden of proof. So predictable.
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?
Once again, you try to shift the burden of proof.
Where is the evidence for a creator deity?
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.
Once again, you fail to understand the basics of how analogies are used.
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.
None of them accept that the constants were fine tuned by a deity.
Special Pleading.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?