A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[FredVB]

There are many arguments for intelligent design but none of them can adequately explain why many of the 'designs' found in nature are full of issues, problems and faults, that can be perfectly be explained by natural selection and evolution. Just a few examples:

Laryngeal Nerve loops below Aorta - think giraffes
Whales and Dolphins that have to breath air
Human appendix
Pandas - only eat calarie poor bamboo and breed very rarely
Cats cannot synthesise taurine
Etc
Etc

I really don't think all such examples are design errors. There is purpose in everything. Take the example of taurine, it is one amino acid, for building protein, all of us and other animals need to acquire certain aminos that we can't manufacture. Those I think likely to have all been readily available in what was provided for all in the garden.

This is a fallen world since then, there are many problems since from that, including in the changes that come genetically, and what we are exposed to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's John Sanford's theory while evolutionist believe natural selection could somehow removes those mutations.

Yes, but how would you test this theory? You know what, never mind... I can see that to expect an answer to this question is too much.

 

[JimFit]

There's plenty of evidence that evolution is the same from one generation to the next compared to the evolution of a new species from an ancestral one.

Really? Where is your proof? LOL

The fine tuning argument is garbage.

Fine-tuning argument - Iron Chariots Wiki

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP-dWQsdZ4U

Addressing and Refuting the Cosmological Fine Tuning Argument for Design ~ ExChristian.Net[/qupte]

Your sources are ridiculous. Did you google them? LOL

Your first url doesn't even provide a counter argument, all it says is the stupid puddle argument that supports the afterlife together with the fine tuning.

In the video Sean Caroll doesn't explain the Fine Tuning, he just denies it like all the atheists here but the Fine Tuning is real, if it wasn't we wouldn't observe it.

Craig responds to Carroll's refutation in full here:

Still More Reflections on the Sean Carroll Debate | Reasonable Faith

Sean also talks about Multiverses and demands a naturalistic explanation without offering an argument for that.

Your third source mentions Victor Stenger's Book “The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us”

Luke Barnes replied here

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

Then Stenger replied to Barnes objection here

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4359.pdf

And Barnes replied here and demolished him, Stenger didn't answer again

In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life | Letters to Nature

Yes it is irrelevant. You never said that whatever the universe was made for had to be conscious. You are now trying to change your argument. My point is that the vast majority of the universe is in fact HOSTILE and IMMEDIATELY DEADLY to our life. If the universe was made for us, why would so much of it be deadly to us? That's like me building a house for you, installing deadly traps in each room except for one, and then saying that the whole house was built for you.

“The universe is too big, too old and too hostile” brrrrr


1. If the universe was designed to support life, then why does it have to be so BIG, and why is it nearly everywhere hostile to life? Why are there so many stars, and why are so few orbited by life-bearing planets? (Let’s call this the size problem.)

1. An answer to the size problem


(a) The main reason why the universe is as big as it currently is that in the first place, the universe had to contain sufficient matter to form galaxies and stars, without which life would not have appeared; and in the second place, the density of matter in the cosmos is incredibly fine-tuned, due to the fine-tuning of gravity. To appreciate this point, let’s go back to the earliest time in the history of the cosmos that we can meaningfully talk about: the Planck time, when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. If the density of matter at the Planck time had differed from the critical density by as little as one part in 10^60, the universe would have either exploded so rapidly that galaxies wouldn’t have formed, or collapsed so quickly that life would never have appeared. In practical terms: if our universe, which contains 10^80 protons and neutrons, had even one more grain of sand in it – or one grain less – we wouldn’t be here.
Fine-tuning expert Dr. Robin Collins elucidates these points in an article entitled, The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe (in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Copyright 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6). On page 215 he writes:

” There is … a fine-tuning of gravity … relative to the density of mass-energy in the early universe and other factors determining the expansion rate of the Big Bang – such as the value of the Hubble constant and the value of the cosmological constant. Holding these other parameters constant, if the strength of gravity were smaller or larger by an estimated one part in 10^60 of its current value, the universe would have either exploded too quickly for galaxies and stars to form, or collapsed back on itself too quickly for life to evolve.”[10]
​

In the footnote, Collins clarifies the connection between the fine-tuning of gravity and the density of matter in the cosmos:

Footnote 10. This latter fine-tuning of the strength of gravity is typically expressed as the claim that the density of matter at the Planck time (the time at which we have any confidence in the theory of Big Bang dynamics) must have been tuned to one part in 10^60 of the so-called critical density (e.g. Davies 1982, p. 89). Since the critical density is inversely proportional to the strength of gravity (Davies 1982, p. 88, eqn. 4.15), the fine-tuning of the matter density can easily be shown to be equivalent to the aforementioned claim about the tuning of the strength of gravity. (Bold emphases mine – VJT.)
​

(b) The theory of cosmic inflation doesn’t solve the problem of the fine-tuning of gravity either. Physicist Dr. Robert Sheldon succinctly exposed the shortcomings of cosmic inflation in a personal email communication to me:

Take inflation, which was supposed to make it as easy as falling off a log to get this precise balance between too much and too little mass. Forget the fact that the existence of the inflaton [the hypothetical field thought to be responsible for cosmic inflation - VJT] has never been observed, or even hinted at except for this Big Bang problem, making it an ad hoc theory par excellence, and forget the fact that we are now 3 or 4 versions later, after earlier versions proved to not work as advertised, the actual fact is that the fine tuning of inflation requires better than 10^80, which makes one wonder whether the cure is worse than the disease.
So no, the problem hasn’t been solved, if we interpret the problem as the fine-tuning necessary to get our particular universe. (Bold emphasis mine – VJT.)
​

(c) The fact that the universe is mostly inhospitable to life has a simple explanation: a universe that was life-friendly everywhere would actually be less elegant, mathematically speaking, and hence less likely to be made by an Intelligent Designer. As Dr. Robin Collins has argued, the laws of our universe are extremely elegant, from a mathematical perspective. (See also my post, Beauty and the multiverse.) If there is an Intelligent Designer, He presumably favors mathematical elegance. Accordingly, the most likely reason why most of the universe is inhospitable to life is the recipe for making a big universe with a few tiny islands of life is mathematically simpler and morer elegant than the the recipe for making a universe with life everywhere, given the laws of Nature as we know them.


(d) Atheists might object that a Cosmic Designer could make a universe which was small and everywhere life-friendly with a different set of laws. If they want to argue that way, that’s fine, but as I argued in my previous post, the onus is on atheists to show us exactly how these hypothetical laws would differ from those in our universe, and how these laws would produce a life-friendly universe.

From Google:

Randomness
Randomness means lack of pattern or predictability in events. Randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.​

How exactly do you arrange NOTHING in a way to leave it disordered? How do you take NOTHING and make it messy?

If something has a definition it doesn't mean it exists exist.

lack of pattern or predictability in events. = we just don't know yet

Please find me something random according to the definition.

True Randomness belongs to Nothingness because something truly random doesn't obey any physical laws, you must have a pattern to have something.

 

[JimFit]

Yeah, you are wrong.

First of all, you claim that in science, "randomness" is NOT defined as "unable to be predicted." But you don't give any source for this claim.

I don't need any source for it.

Secondly, brownian motion IS completely random, as it depends on quantum mechanical causes, and these are not predictable at all. Even if you knew the exact positions of each particle, you could not predict the quantum events that cause brownian motion, and thus you could never predict the movements of the particles.

So much ignorance about quantum mechanics...

Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

But in that case, fine tuning ISN'T REQUIRED. I don't need to fine tune the shape of a container for water to make sure it will fit if I know that the water will take on whatever shape the container is.

To have water you must fine tune a constant, to have matter to create the container you must fine tune a constant, to have the ability to drop water in a container you must fine tune the gravitational constant. Please think before you reply to me.

Well, that throws the common creationist argument of "common design" out the window if the design works differently in each case, doesn't it?

I am not a creationist and no it doesn't.

And evolution is not random. Things like the vulva development, as described in the article, are not taking place in a vacuum. There are all sorts of other genes acting in the body. And a single trait can be controlled by many genes, and a single gene can play a part in many traits. So a trait controlled by a gene in one species might occur in a different way in another species with different genes.

And?

As I said before, quantum mechanics shows this idea to be wrong.

You luck basic understanding in quantum physics.

Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

So what? It's still just a bunch of stuff strung together randomly.

Ehmm what??

How do you get this? You have claimed X is more probable, but you have not shown it.

I have, Fine Tuned Finite Universe.

I never said any such thing.[/qupte]

Yes you did.

If you want me to phrase it this way, here goes.

P1: many universes may exist.
P2: each universe will have different fundamental constants, some of which allow life of some description to arise and others which do not permit life.
P3: life will arise in some number of universes with life-permitting fundamentals.
P4: life will never arise in a universe that has life prohibiting fundamentals.
P5: Life arose in this universe.
Cnclusion: This universe is one of the universes that has life-permitting fundamentals.Now, if every single possible combination of fundamentals exists in one of these universes, then sooner or later, a universe with fundamentals that permit life is going to exist. And since any life that develops MUST BY NECESSITY find itself in such a universe, is it going to be surprising that any life is going to find that the fundamentals of the universe that life is in allow life?

Of course not.

Let me use an analogy. I have a house with many rooms. Some rooms are boobytrapped and others are not. I place a person in each room, assigning people to rooms randomly. The people in the rooms with boobytraps are killed by the traps, and the people in the rooms without boobytraps survive. The survivors are then surprised to find that they are still alive and conclude that they must have been put in rooms for the purpose of surviving.

Of course, they weren't. They just got lucky.

P1: I wish many Universes exist
P2: I wish each universe will have different fundamental constants, some of which allow life of some description to arise and others which do not permit life.
P3 I wish life will arise in some number of universes with life-permitting fundamentals.
P4: I wish life will never arise in a universe that has life prohibiting fundamentals.
P5: I wish ife arose in this universe.
Cnclusion: I wish this universe is one of the universes that has life-permitting fundamentals


First of all there is no theory, not even a hypothesis that allows other Universes to exist, even String Theory doesn't talk about infinite Universes, it talks about a certain amount of Universe that don't fill the probabilities for our Universe to exist.

Secondly 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.

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

Thirdly the Machine that creates Universes has to be Fine Tuned to create Universes and not kitties so the Fine Tuning just moves before our Universe to the Universe Machine Creator.

Extra knowledge

Do Multiverse Scenarios Solve the Problem of Fine-Tuning? |

Multiverse Mania | Not Even Wrong

https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/The_Multiverse_Conundrum

P.S Luck doesn't exist, it is an illusion based on probabilities but here the probabilities won't save you.

Premise 1 is unclear.

Premise 3 is unsupported and wrong anyway.

Premise 3 is begging the question (assuming to be true the same thing it wants to prove).

So your conclusion is not a valid one.

Premise 1 is basic physics

Premise 2 is supported by the fact that only intelligent conscious beings can Tune because they have the intention to do it.

Premise 3 is supported by observations and atheists scientists

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 ?ction 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.


My conclusion is right and you are wrong.

Where did I imply that?

You said that the Universe was caused and not created.

 

[lasthero]

Premise 1 is basic physics

Can you quote a physics papers or something that use that Premise? I looked it up, and the only place I coud even find the phrase was this topic and a blog on uncommondescent.

 

[JimFit]

I've asked you repeatedly to substantiate this claim, that God could create a universe full of black holes but devoid of life. You've yet to make a single keystroke supporting this assertion.

If the irregularities of matter were much higher everything would had collapsed to form black holes. I am just repeating what the Physicists say.

Do you really need more info on how black holes are formed? You can find plenty on google.

You seem to be missing the point. A lone designer deity need not have an intrinsic interest in other conscious beings. You are suggesting that being conscious somehow makes other conscious beings extremely interesting. Perhaps this is true for human beings, who are naturally social creatures, but why presume that the same applies to a designer god? He may have no interest whatsoever in living things. He may be an astronomer entranced by the stars.

God created us on his image and his likeness. This is my view on this as a Christian.

Why? As soon as all the black holes in the universe disappear the designer could simply recreate the universe anew to continue his eternal fascination with black holes. There is no need to render each individual black hole eternal or to impart it with a soul.

If God cared only about black holes he could escape all these and create them in the first place and make them eternal but black holes not only aren't eternal but they don't have a soul.

Look.

Conscious beings like us observe for 2 reasons,

1. We find something mystical and that makes it beautiful to observe it.
2. To obtain knowledge

God is Omniscience, he doesn't have to observe something that he created and know everything about it.

Also black holes aren't objects. A black hole is defined as a region of spacetime from which extremely strong gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping but even that is an assumption.

No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking?At Least Not Like We Think

Consciousness makes us equal to God therefor more important than matter.

Show me that it is a fact. I've been asking you to elaborate on this point for several posts now.

We can observe the distribution of matter in the Universe

Tools to study the distribution of matter in the Universe / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

That's one conception of God; the one shared by Christians, Jews and Muslims. Not all theists conceive of God as a person.

How am i speaking about intention if there isn't something conscious????
Do you really think this argument as a serious one? Unconscious God? LOL

No, they suspect that a person committed the crime, not a disembodied spirit.

They suspect that there was intention behind it and it was not an accident. They used Science to prove intention. Intention exists only in conscious beings and consciousness is immaterial.

You keep shifting the posts back and back. Yet if you accept the truth of the first premise then you cannot posit a supernatural cause for anything except a supernatural effect.

I can because He is the Law maker. Laws aren't created by themselves. Supenatural isn't separated from natural, supernatural is just intention to the natural.

I've noticed that you often try to shift the burden of proof. How do you know that nothingness ever a real state of affairs?

Nothingness = Randomness therefor it couldn't exist because randomness can't determine anything because it could exist only in a in-deterministic reality.

I didn't suggest that God was nothing. I was referring to creatio ex nihilo.

How can you have ex nihilo if God is there?

The first link doesn't mention 'time' at all, nor does it describe how minds can exist in a timeless state. The second and third link don't appear to address the question either. You seem to be stringing together disparate threads in the hope that some connection between them materialises. I suggest arguing for the position, and making the connections explicit, rather than pointing in several directions at once.

The first link shows that Consciousness could arise from quantum levels.

The second link in the paragraph 6 Concluding remarks

http://cosmology.com/MenskyConsciousTime.pdf

addresses quantum consciousness and how quantum correlations (which arise outside spacetime) link to information from past and future (decision).

Please read the whole paper again.

To repeat, my question was: how can a mind make a decision to create, or any decision at all, if it exists in a state of timelessness?

Decision means information. God is omniscience he has all the information. Humans already had the information to take the decision.

In that quote Vilenkin did not say "a beginning from nothing." I don't dispute the notion that the universe began. The issue here is whether it began from nothing. You have suggested that any cosmological model that does not include a beginning from nothing is invalid. I think you need to do more to show why this is the case.

I don't talk about nothing, i talk about a transcendental cause. Nothing can't determine a cause because Nothing is not Deterministic but random (something truly random to exist must exist only in something in-deterministic).

I can't prove a negative.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If the irregularities of matter were much higher everything would had collapsed to form black holes. I am just repeating what the Physicists say.

Okay, which physicists say this?

Do you really need more info on how black holes are formed? You can find plenty on google.

No, but I would like you to back up your claim.

God created us on his image and his likeness. This is my view on this as a Christian.

Okay. But why should anyone else believe that?

If God cared only about black holes he could escape all these and create them in the first place and make them eternal but black holes not only aren't eternal but they don't have a soul.

Look.

Conscious beings like us observe for 2 reasons,

1. We find something mystical and that makes it beautiful to observe it.
2. To obtain knowledge

God is Omniscience, he doesn't have to observe something that he created and know everything about it.

Also black holes aren't objects. A black hole is defined as a region of spacetime from which extremely strong gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping but even that is an assumption.

No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking?At Least Not Like We Think

Consciousness makes us equal to God therefor more important than matter.

God doesn't need to give black holes eternal conscious souls in order to be fascinated by them. And if omniscience means he need not observe them or interact with them to know everything about them then wouldn't the same be true of us?

We can observe the distribution of matter in the Universe

Tools to study the distribution of matter in the Universe / Planck / Space Science / Our Activities / ESA

That doesn't even address the question.

How am i speaking about intention if there isn't something conscious????
Do you really think this argument as a serious one? Unconscious God? LOL

I don't, but other people do. You seem to have taken for granted that your conception of God is not the only one in existence.

They suspect that there was intention behind it and it was not an accident. They used Science to prove intention. Intention exists only in conscious beings and consciousness is immaterial.

I don't think consciousness is immaterial, at least not in the sense in which you imply. I'm not a substance dualist.

I can because He is the Law maker. Laws aren't created by themselves. Supenatural isn't separated from natural, supernatural is just intention to the natural.

Again, you're just shifting the problem further back. But you've already decapitated your own argument with the first premise!

Nothingness = Randomness therefor it couldn't exist because randomness can't determine anything because it could exist only in a in-deterministic reality.

No, nothingness is nothingness. Randomness implies that there is something that varies randomly, not nothingness.

How can you have ex nihilo if God is there?

That's a point many of us make. Perhaps you could ask this question of religious apologists?

The first link shows that Consciousness could arise from quantum levels.

The second link in the paragraph 6 Concluding remarks

http://cosmology.com/MenskyConsciousTime.pdf

addresses quantum consciousness and how quantum correlations (which arise outside spacetime) link to information from past and future (decision).

Please read the whole paper again.

No, I'm not going to do your work for you. You think that there is some connection there, so it's up to you to show it.

Decision means information. God is omniscience he has all the information. Humans already had the information to take the decision.

That doesn't even address the question.

I don't talk about nothing, i talk about a transcendental cause. Nothing can't determine a cause because Nothing is not Deterministic but random (something truly random to exist must exist only in something in-deterministic).

I can't prove a negative.

So you don't argue that the universe was created ex nihilo by God?

 

[Kylie]

Really? Where is your proof? LOL

From Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

"...evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change."

And from CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

"Microevolution and macroevolution [...] involve mostly the same processes."

The processes behind each are the same.

Your sources are ridiculous. Did you google them? LOL

Yes, I have this funny habit of actually researching stuff instead of just going on what I really wish to be true.

Your first url doesn't even provide a counter argument, all it says is the stupid puddle argument that supports the afterlife together with the fine tuning.

Did you actually read it? It provides 14 counter arguments.

In the video Sean Caroll doesn't explain the Fine Tuning, he just denies it like all the atheists here but the Fine Tuning is real, if it wasn't we wouldn't observe it.

The fine tuning is only real if you can demonstrate that there is some intelligent entity that PURPOSELY set the fundamentals to what they are in order to provide a habitat for humans. Can you do this?

Craig responds to Carroll's refutation in full here:

Still More Reflections on the Sean Carroll Debate | Reasonable Faith

He posts three specific points there. There was much more than that which he needs to cover in order to refute the arguments.

Sean also talks about Multiverses and demands a naturalistic explanation without offering an argument for that.

Without offering an argument for the existence of a multiverse?

Your third source mentions Victor Stenger's Book “The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us”

Luke Barnes replied here

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

Then Stenger replied to Barnes objection here

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4359.pdf

And Barnes replied here and demolished him, Stenger didn't answer again

In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life | Letters to Nature

You got some specific parts here? I have this crazy thing called a life outside CF, and I don't have time to read through a 76 page PDF (in the first instance) and who knows how long the other sources are. Please post relevant parts.

“The universe is too big, too old and too hostile” brrrrr


1. If the universe was designed to support life, then why does it have to be so BIG, and why is it nearly everywhere hostile to life? Why are there so many stars, and why are so few orbited by life-bearing planets? (Let’s call this the size problem.)

1. An answer to the size problem


(a) The main reason why the universe is as big as it currently is that in the first place, the universe had to contain sufficient matter to form galaxies and stars, without which life would not have appeared; and in the second place, the density of matter in the cosmos is incredibly fine-tuned, due to the fine-tuning of gravity. To appreciate this point, let’s go back to the earliest time in the history of the cosmos that we can meaningfully talk about: the Planck time, when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. If the density of matter at the Planck time had differed from the critical density by as little as one part in 10^60, the universe would have either exploded so rapidly that galaxies wouldn’t have formed, or collapsed so quickly that life would never have appeared. In practical terms: if our universe, which contains 10^80 protons and neutrons, had even one more grain of sand in it – or one grain less – we wouldn’t be here.
Fine-tuning expert Dr. Robin Collins elucidates these points in an article entitled, The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe (in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Copyright 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6). On page 215 he writes:

” There is … a fine-tuning of gravity … relative to the density of mass-energy in the early universe and other factors determining the expansion rate of the Big Bang – such as the value of the Hubble constant and the value of the cosmological constant. Holding these other parameters constant, if the strength of gravity were smaller or larger by an estimated one part in 10^60 of its current value, the universe would have either exploded too quickly for galaxies and stars to form, or collapsed back on itself too quickly for life to evolve.”[10]
​

In the footnote, Collins clarifies the connection between the fine-tuning of gravity and the density of matter in the cosmos:

Footnote 10. This latter fine-tuning of the strength of gravity is typically expressed as the claim that the density of matter at the Planck time (the time at which we have any confidence in the theory of Big Bang dynamics) must have been tuned to one part in 10^60 of the so-called critical density (e.g. Davies 1982, p. 89). Since the critical density is inversely proportional to the strength of gravity (Davies 1982, p. 88, eqn. 4.15), the fine-tuning of the matter density can easily be shown to be equivalent to the aforementioned claim about the tuning of the strength of gravity. (Bold emphases mine – VJT.)
​

(b) The theory of cosmic inflation doesn’t solve the problem of the fine-tuning of gravity either. Physicist Dr. Robert Sheldon succinctly exposed the shortcomings of cosmic inflation in a personal email communication to me:

Take inflation, which was supposed to make it as easy as falling off a log to get this precise balance between too much and too little mass. Forget the fact that the existence of the inflaton [the hypothetical field thought to be responsible for cosmic inflation - VJT] has never been observed, or even hinted at except for this Big Bang problem, making it an ad hoc theory par excellence, and forget the fact that we are now 3 or 4 versions later, after earlier versions proved to not work as advertised, the actual fact is that the fine tuning of inflation requires better than 10^80, which makes one wonder whether the cure is worse than the disease.
So no, the problem hasn’t been solved, if we interpret the problem as the fine-tuning necessary to get our particular universe. (Bold emphasis mine – VJT.)
​

(c) The fact that the universe is mostly inhospitable to life has a simple explanation: a universe that was life-friendly everywhere would actually be less elegant, mathematically speaking, and hence less likely to be made by an Intelligent Designer. As Dr. Robin Collins has argued, the laws of our universe are extremely elegant, from a mathematical perspective. (See also my post, Beauty and the multiverse.) If there is an Intelligent Designer, He presumably favors mathematical elegance. Accordingly, the most likely reason why most of the universe is inhospitable to life is the recipe for making a big universe with a few tiny islands of life is mathematically simpler and morer elegant than the the recipe for making a universe with life everywhere, given the laws of Nature as we know them.


(d) Atheists might object that a Cosmic Designer could make a universe which was small and everywhere life-friendly with a different set of laws. If they want to argue that way, that’s fine, but as I argued in my previous post, the onus is on atheists to show us exactly how these hypothetical laws would differ from those in our universe, and how these laws would produce a life-friendly universe.

I love this. You go to all this trouble to explain it all in naturalistic terms, while apparently forgetting the fact that if we are really dealing with an entity that can create whole universes, he could simply make it the way he wanted without needing to create something that would eventually develop into what we see.

If something has a definition it doesn't mean it exists exist.

Why did you write Exists twice?

lack of pattern or predictability in events. = we just don't know yet

Please find me something random according to the definition.

According to your definition that you just said? I can't, because I don't believe it is true.

There are things in this universe which are completely random, and no matter how much we know about them, we will never be able to predict them.

An example of this:

I give you a block of radioactive material which contains 100 atoms of Element X. This material has a half life of 1 minute. So, after one minute, 50 atoms will have decayed into element Y. No matter how much you know about the atoms, you will NEVER be able to say for sure which 50 atoms are going to decay in that minute.

True Randomness belongs to Nothingness because something truly random doesn't obey any physical laws, you must have a pattern to have something.

You are right. it obeys quantum mechanical laws instead. And you'll have a hard tme getting anyone to believe that quantum mechanics is wrong.

 

[Kylie]

I don't need any source for it.

Yes. You of all people get to claim whatever you want and are, for some reason, above the need to actually justify your claims.

So much ignorance about quantum mechanics...

Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

Did you even bother to read that? Your own source contradicts your claim that there is no such thing as randomness.

To have water you must fine tune a constant, to have matter to create the container you must fine tune a constant, to have the ability to drop water in a container you must fine tune the gravitational constant. Please think before you reply to me.

Way to miss my point.

I am not a creationist and no it doesn't.

You claim the universe was created. In what way is that NOT creationism of some sort?

And?

And there could be several different reasons why we have that particular outcome.

You luck basic understanding in quantum physics.

Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

Didn't you already post this? This source does not say what you think it says.

Ehmm what??

What you say is fully of important sounding words, but has very little actual meaning.

I have, Fine Tuned Finite Universe.

You making an unsupported claim is not actually showing something.

Yes you did.

P1: I wish many Universes exist
P2: I wish each universe will have different fundamental constants, some of which allow life of some description to arise and others which do not permit life.
P3 I wish life will arise in some number of universes with life-permitting fundamentals.
P4: I wish life will never arise in a universe that has life prohibiting fundamentals.
P5: I wish ife arose in this universe.
Cnclusion: I wish this universe is one of the universes that has life-permitting fundamentals

Yeah, I didn't say that. The fact that you conclude I meant a particular thing does not mean I meant it. Read what I am actually saying instead of what you wish I was saying, okay?

First of all there is no theory, not even a hypothesis that allows other Universes to exist, even String Theory doesn't talk about infinite Universes, it talks about a certain amount of Universe that don't fill the probabilities for our Universe to exist.

Source please?

Secondly 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.

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

Do you have any qualifications in any of these subjects?

Thirdly the Machine that creates Universes has to be Fine Tuned to create Universes and not kitties so the Fine Tuning just moves before our Universe to the Universe Machine Creator.

Where did I talk about a universe-creating machine?

P.S Luck doesn't exist, it is an illusion based on probabilities but here the probabilities won't save you.

Now you are contradicting yourself. How can there be probabilities if there is no randomness? If everything could be predicted as you claim, then we can say that any possibility is either 100% or 0% Nothing in between. And therefore we don't have to figure out how probable something is.

Premise 1 is basic physics

Then please tell me what "spawn-like effects" are. An effect similar to spawning?

Premise 2 is supported by the fact that only intelligent conscious beings can Tune because they have the intention to do it.

You seem to be confusing "tuning" with "producing ordered results." There is a difference which you do not seem to be aware of.

Premise 3 is supported by observations and atheists scientists

No. If you had said that the universe contains conditions which life as we know it needs, then I would agree with you. But when you claimed they are fine tuned, you are assuming that that there is fine tuning in order to show that there is fine tuning. And that is the very definition of "begging the question."

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.

"APPEARS to..."

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.”

"APPEAR fine tuned..."

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 ?ction 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.

And for some reason you seem surprised that you are not observing a universe which does not contain fundamentals that can support life?

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.

This does not mean it is fine tuned. It simply says that it is something that we need to work out. An admission of ignorance does not mean god did it.

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.

Yes. A universe that is "almost always deadly" and is only on "rare occasions, perfectly lovely" was obviously designed for the purpose of housing humanity.

And there are other explanations than random chance and intelligent design.

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.

Again, he is simply saying that the answer remains unknown. How you conclude this means it MUST have been designed is beyond me, because he never said anything in support of that.

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.

He's just stating what we can see. He's not saying anything that needs an explanation.

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.

Gues what? You seem to be unable to do your own research and simply just cut and paste large sections of it from other websites. In Defence of The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life | Letters to Nature

My conclusion is right and you are wrong.

Since your argument seems to be cutting and pasting from websites who give conclusions you agree with rather than actually studying and understanding the things you are talking about, I;d say your conclusion is wishful thinking.

You said that the Universe was caused and not created.

According to quantum mechanics, you can have uncaused effects. Not all events necessarily have causes - Iron Chariots Wiki

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheist claims "nobody did it with magic" . . .

False. We point to the fact that there is no evidence for deities poofing things into existence with magic.

Let make it clear I don't disagree (as well as other creationists) with evolution in nature. What is being debated is evolution that exist only in evolutionist's mind.

You have mispresented every scientific paper you have referenced thus far. I don't think it is us who has the problem.

Science can only test evolution is nature (microevolution) and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis requires a lot of code which is more in common with macroevolution.

False. You just ignore the tests for macroevolution.

 

[Smidlee]

False. We point to the fact that there is no evidence for deities poofing things into existence with magic.



.

We do have proof code can be created by a creator.
Frozen (2013 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most logical conclusion is the mind that created this film is also intelligent designed.

Is the creation of Frozen magic?

False. You just ignore the tests for macroevolution.

I don't have to ignore something that doesn't exist. Everything known has been to a fruit fly without any hint of macroevolution until finally it was realized it would take a lot of "rewiring" to make major body plan changes.

 

[Loudmouth]

We do have proof code can be created by a creator.

Where is your evidence that code is created by a supernatural deity?

The most logical conclusion is the mind that created this film is also intelligent designed.

No one is claiming that films evolved. Nor has anyone claimed that Frozen was created by a deity.

I don't have to ignore something that doesn't exist.

ERV evidence for macroevolution:

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

 

[Smidlee]

Where is your evidence that code is created by a supernatural deity?

It the most logical conclusion since no one can go back in time and prove the past.

No one is claiming that films evolved. Nor has anyone claimed that Frozen was created by a deity.

Deity by definition would be our creator.

ERV evidence for macroevolution:

ERVs - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

It already been shown common genes /DNA doesn't mean it was the result of Macroevolution or common ancestor. This is the assumption that needs to be proven.

 

[Loudmouth]

It the most logical conclusion since no one can go back in time and prove the past.

That would be a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.

Deity by definition would be our creator.

That's strange since my parents claim to be mortals and not deities, and they are the ones that created me.

It already been shown common genes /DNA doesn't mean it was the result of Macroevolution or common ancestor.

Where has anyone ever observed a deity producing two species with shared DNA?

This is the assumption that needs to be proven.

We observe that common ancestry produces organisms with shared DNA. No assumption needed.

 

[Smidlee]

That would be a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance.

But it's not an argument from ignorance it an argument from intelligence.

That's strange since my parents claim to be mortals and not deities, and they are the ones that created me.

You don't understand biology if you thought your parent created you.

Where has anyone ever observed a deity producing two species with shared DNA?

I don't try to deny the things I accept on faith. My faith is still based on sound reasoning.
We know an intelligent beings can copy codes from one program to another.

We observe that common ancestry produces organisms with shared DNA. No assumption needed.

We also observe organisms with shared DNA that is not the result of common ancestry. Since shared DNA between creatures that are not the result of common ancestor can not falsify evolution neither can shared DNA be used to prove evolution. You can't have it both ways.
Now you can accept it by faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it's not an argument from ignorance it an argument from intelligence.

Your argument is based on our ignorance of what happened in the past. That is an argument from ignorance.

You don't understand biology if you thought your parent created you.

Have you had the talk with your parents about the birds and the bees?

I don't try to deny the things I accept on faith. My faith is still based on sound reasoning.
We know an intelligent beings can copy codes from one program to another.

When has anyone observed a deity copying anything?

We also observe organisms with shared DNA that is not the result of common ancestry.

Examples?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We do have proof code can be created by a creator.
Frozen (2013 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most logical conclusion is the mind that created this film is also intelligent designed.

Is the creation of Frozen magic?

I addressed your point about Frozen here.

 

[Smidlee]

Your argument is based on our ignorance of what happened in the past. That is an argument from ignorance.

No one was there to witness the past so everything to do with the past in your book would be an argument of ignorance.

Have you had the talk with your parents about the birds and the bees?

When I put in a PS4 game disc into my PS4 doesn't make the creator of the game or the system .

 

[Smidlee]

Except man didn't conjure Frozen into existence out of nothing.

Hmmm... never had an idea just pop in your head?

The analogy falls apart when one considers that you are drawing a parallel between ex nihilo and ex materia creation. To maintain the analogy you would have to say that God created the universe from some pre-existing stuff, which I presume is contrary to your doctrinal commitments.

What exactly is stuff? I don't have direct contact with "stuff".

But it wasn't conjured into existence from nothing. If it was that would indeed be magical, or incredibly perplexing at very least.

The same with God. I agree with the Pope: God is not a magician.
Besides magic requires a being , a code, sometimes "stuff" and done on purpose. Atheist point of view is worst than magic since there is no magician, no stuff , without code (information) nor purpose.

 

[Loudmouth]

No one was there to witness the past so everything to do with the past in your book would be an argument of ignorance.

Please learn what is meant by an argument from ignorance.

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)."
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I put in a PS4 game disc into my PS4 doesn't make the creator of the game or the system .

Call you parents immediately. Ask them to give you the talk about the "birds and the bees". They will know what I mean.