durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,469
- 19,166
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Right. Statistically, our result may well be as "special" as any other result.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right. Statistically, our result may well be as "special" as any other result.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....
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.
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?
from Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.Lambda (λis 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.
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.
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 natures 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 neutrinoa 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 wouldnt be living here at allwe wouldnt 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."
I don't "believe" anything.
No, that's not what "supernatural" means. "supernatural" is the violation / suspension of natural law.
I don't see how...
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.
Making assumptions about reality again.
Who demonstrated that the universe doesn't come from a physical reality?
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...
"fine tuning" is not a "field".
At best, it's a non-scientific metaphor used by scientists to make a point about physics.
At worse, it's a concept being abused by creationists. This thread is a great example of it.
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.
False dichotomy and argument from incredulity. And somewhat of an appeal to ignorance as well. Gratz on the combo points.
The projection is hilarious. And my irony meter exploded.First, why would I try to prove claims that I'm not making?
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.
Evidence?
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 also have massive bodies of precedents and cases to compare to, to form their conclusions.
You have exactly one universe and no way to compare it to another.
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.
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.
And infinite past, by definition, doesn't have a cause, because it never began... being infinite and all...
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.
Evidence of this claim?
My life is not without purpose at all.
Actually, you just asserted it. Much like you just asserted everything else. You didn't debunk (or demonstrate) anything at all.
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.
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.
Evidence?
Start with demonstrating that a "timeless and spaceless consciousness" even exists.
Then explain how the words "before the universe" even make sense.
Then support the claim that this "timeless and spaceless consciousness" created the universe.
Because when we do that, we end up with Norse Gods smashing hammers to explain things like lightning and thunder.
I don't understand this question.
I didn't ask you to. You made a statement ("universe is unique") and I challenged it.
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.
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.
Only one of us is pretending to know. And it's not me.
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.
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.
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'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
Please debunk it.
I dont see how suitability for humans means there was a purpose or intent for humans. One doenst necessarily follow the other.....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.....
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.
I've already shared a video that debunks your video. That's all the time I care to spend on that.
I dont see how suitability for humans means there was a purpose or intent for humans. One doenst necessarily follow the other.
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 can you determine the difference between something fine tuned and something not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?