A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[durangodawood]

And in a pool of exactly 1 universe, some universe must come out. And there need not be any reason why this universe happens to come out as opposed to another....

Right. Statistically, our result may well be as "special" as any other result.

 

[Damian79]

And in a pool of exactly 1 universe, some universe must come out. And there need not be any reason why this universe happens to come out as opposed to another.

Just like when you throw a gazillion dice some result will follow. And that result will have the exact same probability as any other result and there need not be any reason why that result came out instead of any of the others.

I agree with this.

What about all the potential lifeforms that could have existed in any of the other universe configurations? What about their "luck"?

What about the "luck" of the many many people that didn't win the lottery?

They wont have any "luck" because their universe wouldnt exist as in the stars just wouldnt form as i explained earlier.

From the wiki:

Lambda (&#955 is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[14] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.

from Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.

Special pleading is when one makes a general rule and then takes exception to that rule to make a point.

Like saying "everything that exists needs to begin to exist... except for this bronze age deity here...".

How is that what I did?

In fact, if anything, I was doing the opposite. I was taking your reasoning and applying it accross the board, to show you how it is fallacious.

The universe is not the way it is just so that humans could live. Humans are not the purpose of the universe.

Just like the north pole is not cold so that ice could exist there. Ice is not the purpose of the north pole.

Rather, humans exist as a result of the universe being the way it is.
Just like ice exists at the north pole as a result of the north pole being the way it is.

That's where the whole fallacy start: the assumption that we humans are special and the point of the universe. The assumption that whatever the explanation of the universe is, it should be an explanation that is centered around the existence of homo sapiens. Unsurprisingly, theists engage in that kind of fallacy on a regular basis. Reason is simple... The religion requires them to believe this...

They assume the answer before asking the question.

Perhaps it isnt special pleading, it is perhaps "misrepresentation".

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Some of the evidence that supports my certainty that God produced and sustains the universe is that it is finely tuned all over to allow even the existence of atomic matter, let alone life and consciousness. If one of the fundamental constants (the weak atomic force for example) was off by a scale of a hair, molecular existence would not form at all.


What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos


Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God

Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature — like the strength of gravity — and the beginning state of the Universe — like its density — have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.3

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - The Nature of Reality

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.


Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."




When science and philosophy collide in a 'fine-tuned' universe

Carbon resonance and the strong force. Although the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium are well-explained by known physical principles, the formation of heavier elements, beginning with carbon, very sensitively depends on the balance of the strong and weak forces. If the strong force were slightly stronger or slightly weaker (by just 1% in either direction), there would be no carbon or any heavier elements anywhere in the universe, and thus no carbon-based life forms like us to ask why.

What is the “fine-tuning” of the universe, and how does it serve as a “pointer to God”? | BioLogos

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


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

The MOST IMPOSSIBLE of all things, is that there is NOT a personal willful intelligent Theistic Creator / Designer for the immense complexity of our Cosmos . Utterly impossible in the highest degree :

Reasons To Believe : Design Evidences in the Cosmos (1998)

 

[JimFit]

I don't "believe" anything.

Then why you are an atheist? lol

No, that's not what "supernatural" means. "supernatural" is the violation / suspension of natural law.

I brought this as an example so you can get my point, as for humans changing the laws of physics, well someday we will do it but not magically as you think aka stimulus alteration of gravity, it doesn't work that way, it will work like the butterfly effect we already do this on zero gravity flights, we know what it takes to remove gravity and it takes high and speed. Basically our Minds already can imagine how to alter the physical laws though imagination and everything around you was a product of someone's imagination.

I don't see how...

The anthropic principle is logical when there are other universes to account for probabilities for our creation (it happens to be here because of the probabilities), obviously there are not other Universes with no life to account them for our existence, the String Theory that is responsible for you talking about Multiverses can't offer more than 10500 Universes, also the Multiverses demand a begging AND a fine tuned constant!

That's like saying that an accident can't account for your wife's black eye because you hit her.

Having said that, you don't know what can and can't accound for the universe, because you don't have the required knowledge about its origins to make any statement about it one way or the other.

It's just an argument from incredulity. For all you know, this universe was inevitable and "chance" is just irrelevant. You don't know. You just pretend that you do.

Sorry but i know that the cause of the Universe is a transcendent cause and not a physical one, the cause is immaterial, timeless and spaceless, it has been proven that the Big Bang started everything including time and space and there is intention because the creation couldn't exist if the constants were different.
If the Hubble Constant was different there would be no Universe at all! Of course you can believe that Luck did it but what is Luck? Have you ever wonder if Luck exists? How can you have Luck when you have no Universe at all? So Luck began together with the Universe and can't account for the Creation of the Universe!

Making assumptions about reality again.
Who demonstrated that the universe doesn't come from a physical reality?

Here it is, 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

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).


Unless you have a model of Eternal Universe don't reply again on this. You are just recycling 17th century old cosmology lol

I can't prove it. Hence the word "might". It's a what-if question. You don't know. Neither do I. I'm just trying to make clear to you how you are making unreasonable assumptions...

Your might also need a beginning as BVG Theorem proved so it cannot account for it, sorry.

"fine tuning" is not a "field".

It is not a field but it is a problem, Susskind obviously recognizes and even puts a Consciousness behind of it as an answer..here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

At best, it's a non-scientific metaphor used by scientists to make a point about physics.

Its not a point about physics but about the Universe, if it was a point about physics they wouldn't say that physics began with the Universe.

At worse, it's a concept being abused by creationists. This thread is a great example of it.

Sorry but these are not creationists neither 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.
​

Why are those the only choices?
And my answer is that I don't know. I'm not the one pretending to have an answer to such questions... that's you.

I already proved that there is intention when i said that the constants couldn't be different and have a Universe, the only way to refute it is to say that intention doesn't exist anywhere! Not even in us! How can there be other choices? Either there was intention or not! You believe so hard on Materialism that you can't understand what i am saying, your default belief is that the Universe is Eternal because Materialism is right, BVG destroyed that argument, THE UNIVERSE IS NOT ETERNAL! THE UNIVERSE BEGAN THEREFOR MATERIALISM ALSO BEGAN YOU CAN'T PUT IT AS AN ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE!

False dichotomy and argument from incredulity. And somewhat of an appeal to ignorance as well. Gratz on the combo points.

Sorry random cosmic mistake but to refute my answer you must PROVE that chance exists and could account for the creation of the Universe, you must PROVE that intention doesn't account for creation and you must PROVE that randomness exists. Of course i am not expecting to understand your fallacies..

The projection is hilarious. And my irony meter exploded.First, why would I try to prove claims that I'm not making?

You are claiming that chance exists in the lottery machine which i will debunk later.

Second, your bronze-age claims aren't true by default. If you wish to claim intention, then you have a burden of proof. Good luck with that.

Bronze age claims? Lol you can't escape the first cause and this cause must be timeless spaceless and immaterial.

Evidence?

The fact that we understand the Universe is proof that our Consciousness is not physical and transcends the Universe. How can you put something above something else in this case understanding if it is depends on it? etc if Consciousness is bound to the Physical?

The fact that Science works with Determinism prove the first cause.

The fact that the chain of events that led to us couldn't be different proves a plan that is understandable through our intention to do Science.

The difference is that "criminologists" use evidence to make support their claims, and they also don't provide the answers before asking the questions.

They couldn't see the murderer to commit the murder directly.

They also have massive bodies of precedents and cases to compare to, to form their conclusions.

AHA! You said conclusions, so now conclusion shows the murderer but not God? What a hypocrite you are. Also they still haven't see the murderer directly to commit the murder.

You have exactly one universe and no way to compare it to another.

So the first murder wasn't really a murder because there were no other murder to compare it? Oh men how many facepalms, i have a headache..

And of course there are no other Universes emm bodies...

You do have, however, an a priori belief that requires you to believe that there IS intention. You formed your conclusion before you asked the question.

No, i just said that there is an absolute cause and that cause had the intention to create the Universe.

And for the record, it seems to me like you haven't even come around to honestly asking the question. You started from your answer and continued from there.

What question?

 

[JimFit]

And infinite past, by definition, doesn't have a cause, because it never began... being infinite and all...

Yes that is obvious but doesn't remove the fact that must be finite in the past. The notion of an infinite causal regress providing a proper explanation is fallacious. Even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause.To explain this, suppose there exists a causal chain of infinite contingent beings. If one asks the question, "Why are there any contingent beings at all?", it won’t help to be told that "There are contingent beings because other contingent beings caused them." That answer would just presuppose additional contingent beings. An adequate explanation of why some contingent beings exist would invoke a different sort of being, a necessary being that is not contingent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#cite_note-25A response might suppose each individual is contingent but the infinite chain as a whole is not; or the whole infinite causal chain to be its own cause.

Regardless though, I don't believe in an infinite past (or an intinite universe for that matter). So I wonder what your point is. Another strawman I guess.

So you believe in magic? Something from Nothingness without even a magician to do the trick or a magic wand or even a stage?

Evidence of this claim?

That intention is part of the immaterial, timeless, spaceless consciousness and it is the only reasonable answer since the Universe is Finite?
First have you proved that you are a random cosmic mistake that nothingness spewed? Have you broke the chain of events? Have you proved that chance exists? Have you proved that the Universe is Eternal? Everything works with Theism because part of intention is the FACT that the constants couldn't be different and humans exist so there was a plan that goes before the Universe in the Ultimate cause and since this describes what a Mind is (Immaterial, Timeless, Spaceless) it is obvious that there was intention.

My life is not without purpose at all.

Your life is purposeless, you don't even have Free Will on Materialism to have your own purpose LOL

Actually, you just asserted it. Much like you just asserted everything else. You didn't debunk (or demonstrate) anything at all.

It is debunked because of the Boltzmann Brain problem

Chance

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.http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-...god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmology#_ftn21Appeal 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.


More here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_42skzOHjtA&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g&index=4

Chance explains lots of things.
Like "why did I win the lottery?" The answer is in probabilities. Chance. The answer is not "because Mars was in the right position" or "fairies made those numbers pop up". The explanation is chance.

HAHAHHAHAHHA thanks i had a good chuckle on this one!
The lottery works because there are physical laws to determine the result, move the lottery machine to space, will it work? No because there is no gravity! See? That's pseudochance, its an illusion for the uneducated people that don't know science. Also the lottery machine is fixed that's why the "lucky" games always win, they have fixed the probabilities to always win. So yes to draw a number you must have the lottery machine in the right position of space and time, in the right laws that will let the balls to hop up and down and come our.

False dichotomy and baseless assertion.
Even assuming that chance isn't an option, that doesn't automatically make your particular claim true. You're still required to support your claim with actual positive evidence FOR your claim.

I think i proved that there was a goal for humans to be created because there is only one way to have intelligent life. Goals can exist only in conscious beings and not unconscious beings such as rocks. So no, you are arguing from ignorance, your delusional chance is not even an argument against intention. Intention will affect someday even the physical laws, to support the opposite makes you regressive.

Evidence?

The Universe is Finite and only a reality like this can account for a cause.

Start with demonstrating that a "timeless and spaceless consciousness" even exists.

Here it is

[1407.2627] Super-intuition and correlations with the future in Quantum Consciousness

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

Then explain how the words "before the universe" even make sense.
Then support the claim that this "timeless and spaceless consciousness" created the universe.

Literally it doesn't make sense but metaphorically it does, lets move the before the Universe on above the Universe, that way it is easier to understand what a transcendent cause is.
The Fine Tuning proves that the Universe was created with a goal to create intelligent life and goals exists only in consciousness.

Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)

Both Physical necessity and chance cannot justify the Fine Tuning, there is no fourth way, either the Universe was created or it is a random cosmic mistake. If there is another way please prove it.

[1407.2627] Super-intuition and correlations with the future in Quantum Consciousness

Because when we do that, we end up with Norse Gods smashing hammers to explain things like lightning and thunder.

Obviously i am not talking about a Materialistic God with a body. God is Timeless Spaceless and Immaterial like the first century apologetists described Him, this description of God didn't came at the 21th century after the Universe was discovered that it is truly finite, it is almost 2000 years old and some of my ancestors (Ancient Greek Philosophers) also proposed this idea of God. God is not powerful because he has unlimited power, God is Powerful because He is Omniscience, Knowledge is Power and God has the Knowledge to unfold a Universe in the way He wants, in our case to create His images that have the option join Him by behaving like Him and the golden rule that governs the Universe.

I don't understand this question.

Have the constants a constant that governs them? Does these constants also have constants that govern them ad infinium?

I didn't ask you to. You made a statement ("universe is unique") and I challenged it.

Universe means everything inside of it, you must ask yourself where are these delusional Universes exist and why aren't considered as part of our Universe when they float on soothing that demands space and time.
Anyway i don't see how Multiverses can help you, they too demand a beginning.

You saying here that you "can't prove a negative" is actually an admission that you can't support your empty statement. That was the point.

Arguing with Multiverses is like arguing with tooth fairies.

I never made such a claim.
I consider it a possibility. I'm not saying it is the case. It's just yet another possibility. There are lots of possibilities. Some of them interesting, others not. Some of them with some support, others without.

So there is a possibility that God exists or there is no possibility because you are biased?

Only one of us is pretending to know. And it's not me.

If you truly believe that you don't know you wouldn't be an atheist to assume a Materialistic explanation when Materialism began together with the Universe, you would be AN AGNOSTIC. I proved that the Universe is Finite through Science, Eternal Universe is wrong together with your Materialism. I know therefor that Apologetics were right that God is Timeless Spaceless and Immaterial and the proof is that i as a conscious being carry the same properties of God.

 

[JimFit]

fine-tune: make small adjustments to (something) in order to achieve the best or a desired performance.

Chairs being built didn't create a purpose for sitting. You have it backwards or something.

You have to start with some purpose, in order to say something was fine tuned for that purpose.

If you have to make an adjustment you have done a mistake, obviously God is omniscience He hasn't have to make an adjustment He created the Constants and the laws as it had to be to unfold a Universe with intelligent life. Remember the constants and the laws describe the matter, they don't really exist somewhere.

God didn't had a purpose, purpose goes for humans which are incomplete in the sense that they don't know everything. You can't have a purpose to achieve something when you already know the end result dahhhh
If you are asking what's the purpose of humans in this life , it is to be God like not in the sense of power and authority but in the sense of the golden rule and to do that they must follow the teachings of Christ.

 

[Non sequitur]

If you have to make an adjustment you have done a mistake, obviously God is omniscience He hasn't have to make an adjustment He created the Constants and the laws as it had to be to unfold a Universe with intelligent life. Remember the constants and the laws describe the matter, they don't really exist somewhere.

God didn't had a purpose, purpose goes for humans which are incomplete in the sense that they don't know everything. You can't have a purpose to achieve something when you already know the end result dahhhh.

Your post is riddled with contradictions, odd semantics, and is one big word salad.

You have to have a purpose first ("Is there a tuner?" "What is this tuner?" are much later) to be able to start saying something is fine tuned; you can't get around words and their definitions.

It's dishonest to try and figure out if the universe is fine tuned, or not, and start with "God is..."

If you want anyone to take any argument or statement you say seriously, you should stop pre-loading your answers when trying to logic.

 

[JimFit]

Your post is riddled with contradictions, odd semantics, and is one big word salad.

No its not random cosmic mistake.

You have to have a purpose first ("Is there a tuner?" "What is this tuner?" are much later) to be able to start saying something is fine tuned; you can't get around words and their definitions.

You can't have purpose if you are omniscience, purpose is for humans which are imperfect and try to be perfect, that's why atheists are scared of eternal life, they say "What is the purpose to live eternally? There is no purpose if the life is eternal!" You mess up the definition of the word purpose with omniscience which are 2 totally different things. Have you read the definition of the word purpose?

It's dishonest to try and figure out if the universe is fine tuned, or not, and start with "God is..."

The Universe is Fine Tuned. The question is if Consciousness preceeds the Universe or the Universe creates Consciousness, if the Universe was due to intention or due to an infinite past chain of events (turtles all the way down)

The Second option was destroyed.

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

The first has been proven, Consciousness does affect the matter!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

If you want anyone to take any argument or statement you say seriously, you should stop pre-loading your answers when trying to logic.

LOL AN ATHEIST TALKS ABOUT LOGIC!!!!! hahahhahhhhahahaha yeap that gave me a chuckle.

You have two options my friend and both are illogical, turtles all the way down and something from nothing!!!!!

You are biased to think that only Materialism offers a logical argument when even logic in materialism is an illusion. You are the one that pre-loads answers. "I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE IN GOD, THERE IS ONLY MATTER, MATTER WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING" That's how an atheist thinks.

Materialism was wrong get over it!

The Fine Tuning also is a reality that atheists scientists accept. Here, Susskind even mentions God (a conscious being with intention) as an option to solve the Fine Tuning. He also talks about the 3 options, Chance, Physical Necessity or Design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

Fine Tuning due to Chance or Physical Necessity? Βoth can't solve it.

Physical Necessity

​

Consider the first alternative, 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.[21] 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.

Design​

​

It seems, then, that the fine-tuning is not plausibly due to physical necessity or chance. Therefore, we ought to prefer the hypothesis of design unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be just as implausible as its rivals. I’ll leave it up to you to debunk it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here it is

[1407.2627] Super-intuition and correlations with the future in Quantum Consciousness

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory -- ScienceDaily

I've already addressed this, Jim. The sources you provided do not support what you are claiming. In fact, given that quantum mechanism is part of our physical reality, it is at odds with your mind-body dualism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I've already addressed this, Jim. The sources you provided do not support what you are claiming. In fact, given that quantum mechanism is part of our physical reality, it is at odds with your mind-body dualism.

Not only that, but that "End of Materialism" video is on the level of credibility as What the *BLEEP* Do We Know? It's like posting videos of Deepak Chopra.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JimFit]

I've already addressed this, Jim. The sources you provided do not support what you are claiming. In fact, given that quantum mechanism is part of our physical reality, it is at odds with your mind-body dualism.

I am an Idealist Panentheist and you didn't addressed anything i said, you are just whining that your nihilism is wrong . The double slit experiment already proved my point that Consciousness affects the result and since the Universe began and everything physical began also, only Consciousness could preceded the Universe because Consciousness is the only immaterial, spaceless and timeless thing that exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70&feature=player_detailpage&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

 

[JimFit]

Not only that, but that "End of Materialism" video is on the level of credibility as What the *BLEEP* Do We Know? It's like posting videos of Deepak Chopra.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Please debunk it. There are things that are not known yet but that doesn't mean that Consciousness doesn't precedes the Universe, in fact the double slit experiment DRIVES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS THE CASE and materialism is wrong. You are arguing with delusional Materialism, you wish that Materialism is the answer for everything, you are arguing that Materialism solves Consciousness, guess what it has been proven wrong 3 times already and atheists just pray on ignorance to get rid of the experiment that destroyed their purposeless life.

 

[JimFit]

The original atheistic position/prediction was that the universe did not have life in mind and that life, and humans in particular, are ‘just a fluke’ that randomly happened for no particular reason at all.
The discovery that both the universe and earth exhibit an extreme, incomprehensible, degree of fine-tuning for not only life but particularly for life like human life is something that confirms Theistic presuppositions and disconfirms, indeed is completely antithetical to, Atheistic presuppositions. For Atheists to pretend that these discoveries are of no importance is yet another clear example of the depths of intellectual dishonesty atheists are willing to entertain just so to defend their Nihilistic worldview.


Atheism is epistemologically self defeating and is thus certainly not ‘scientific’.

Atheists use chance where chance never solves anything (it is a flawed philosophical view) and physical necessity when anything physical started with the Big Bang. The fact that Science needs intention first proves that even the philosophy of Materialism needs intention. Everything goes around of our Consciousness even nihilism because the fact that we wonder about life is part of our Minds which are immaterial, spaceless and timeless and that gives them the ability to look at the Universe in future time, past time and above.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please debunk it.

I've already shared a video that debunks your video. That's all the time I care to spend on that.

If you like, I will quote myself from post #779:

Something that you should be aware of is that it is not considered scientific fact that a conscious mind is required to collapse a wave function. All that is required is some "measurement" -- a physical interaction -- with the wave function.

Journal of Cosmology

The only 'observer' which is essential in orthodox practical quantum theory is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. Of course this apparatus, in laboratory experiments, is chosen and adjusted by the experiments. In this sense the outcomes of experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters! But once the apparatus is in place, and functioning untouched, it is a matter of complete indifference - according to ordinary quantum mechanics - whether the experimenters stay around to watch, or delegate such 'observing' to computers, (Bell, 1984).

Idealism, as defined in the video, has not been strongly supported. It is not a scientific fact.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

....The discovery that both the universe and earth exhibit an extreme, incomprehensible, degree of fine-tuning for not only life but particularly for life like human life is something that confirms Theistic presuppositions and disconfirms, indeed is completely antithetical to, Atheistic presuppositions.....

I dont see how suitability for humans means there was a purpose or intent for humans. One doenst necessarily follow the other.

 

[NannaNae]

I love these videos !!! thank you . I am going now to youtube to find more..

Wave = HE spoke= Word
and with his breath created laws with which He built creation from.


on reality

now God said we died .
it is man who said he is alive and the cat is dead before he sees it , Not God..

the unexplained collapse mechanism = fallen =

thus de- evolution/ collapse of reality happened in mankind's mind and his genes. Even the laws in effect of his eyes sees only fallen/ simplistic/ the collapsed and can only make a question and a measurement from that point of veiw.

so it was
6 fingers on the 6th day!
two Rows of teeth like sharks built to chew forever.
We were not created to fall.
But we wanted too, so we did .
Hell happened in our minds and he has nothing to do with what goes on there . we do.
Only He can restore us and only when we want him too.
because it really is about our choices.
I love those videos.
awesome!

 

[Non sequitur]

The original atheistic position/prediction was that the universe did not have life in mind and that life, and humans in particular, are ‘just a fluke’ that randomly happened for no particular reason at all.
The discovery that both the universe and earth exhibit an extreme, incomprehensible, degree of fine-tuning for not only life but particularly for life like human life is something that confirms Theistic presuppositions and disconfirms, indeed is completely antithetical to, Atheistic presuppositions. For Atheists to pretend that these discoveries are of no importance is yet another clear example of the depths of intellectual dishonesty atheists are willing to entertain just so to defend their Nihilistic worldview.


Atheism is epistemologically self defeating and is thus certainly not ‘scientific’.

Atheists use chance where chance never solves anything (it is a flawed philosophical view) and physical necessity when anything physical started with the Big Bang. The fact that Science needs intention first proves that even the philosophy of Materialism needs intention. Everything goes around of our Consciousness even nihilism because the fact that we wonder about life is part of our Minds which are immaterial, spaceless and timeless and that gives them the ability to look at the Universe in future time, past time and above.

No, no, no, no.

You can't stay on one topic or answer one question without acting like a 9 year-old commenting on youtube.

Your whole argument is a post hoc fallacy, special pleading and strawman knockdowns; you have yet to show how it is fine-tuned, only found the universe profound and amazing, statistics and Deepak Chopra comments... then said it was fine tuned.

I can't tell if you don't know that your making these logical errors or not...

How about you just answer one question and don't ramble on.

How can you determine the difference between something fine tuned and something not?

 

[JimFit]

I've already shared a video that debunks your video. That's all the time I care to spend on that.

AND YOUR VIDEO WAS DEBUNKED HERE


https://inspiringphilosophy.wordpre...ath-quantum-bayesism-wave-functions-and-more/

 

[JimFit]

I dont see how suitability for humans means there was a purpose or intent for humans. One doenst necessarily follow the other.

God doesn't have a purpose because He is Eternal, something that is Eternal is purposeless, God created us due to His unconditional love. You atheists have a problem with unconditional love, you want always a reason to exist, why don't you just believe in love?

 

[JimFit]

No, no, no, no.

You can't stay on one topic or answer one question without acting like a 9 year-old commenting on youtube.

Atheists behave like spoiled children not me.

Your whole argument is a post hoc fallacy, special pleading and strawman knockdowns;

Why?

you have yet to show how it is fine-tuned, only found the universe profound and amazing, statistics and Deepak Chopra comments... then said it was fine tuned.

You can debunk this paper which even Victor Stenger couldn't do it and then we will have a talk about the Fine Tuning

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

Deepak Chopra? No sorry, i am with Henry Stapp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYPjXz1MVv0

I can't tell if you don't know that your making these logical errors or not...

Logical errors? You mean Chance, Randomness, Creation out of Nothing and the rest of the BS you Atheists BELIEVE?

How can you determine the difference between something fine tuned and something not?

The one exists and the other doesn't.

Dr Guillermo Gonzalez surveys and briefly, simply explains several fine tuning cases behind the cosmological design inference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M39BKwtUAyA