A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[DogmaHunter]

Just because you cannot make sense of it, does non-sense of it make. Word salads exist in the place where specific words do not exist because man has not invented the word yet. More important than consensus labeling is the explanation of the logistics and mechanics behind a thing.

No. A word salad is the kind of practice people like Deepak Chopra (and you) engage in. It's using a bunch of sciency-sounding buzzwords (like "quantum" - Deepak's favorite word used every other sentence) in sentences that make no sense at all.

And in your rush to ridicule and dismiss, you forget that every breakthrough in science was a new perspective/idea larger than the establishment of the time.

Like Loudmouth said, those ideas were communicated through proper channels to the scientific community, backed by massive amounts of evidence, papers in proper format, etc.

As long as you don't have such proper data to support your ideas that other scientists can look at and verify and test, you got nothing but assertions and wild ideas.

Do you know where the name "Big Bang Theory" actually comes from? Ridicule!
When the Belgian dude Lemaitre came up with the idea of an expanding universe, his peers ridiculed it. "Big Bang" was a name coined by those peers and it was meant to mock the idea. Later on, evidence kept piling up and the theory of big bang was born. They kept that mocking name.

Just to say, ridicule is a perfectly fine response if you assert ideas without evidence - even if your ideas turn out to be accurate after all. The thing is that we don't know that until you present the evidence (not here - since this forum is not an appropriate channel to evaluate that evidence). And until you do, why do you think anyone should take your ideas seriously?

 

[JimFit]

The biggest nightmare of the New Atheists is the Fine Tuning of the Universe that demolished the argument that we are here by pure chance. You can see already see them coming with their ridiculous arguments.

The puddle argument

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. Douglas Adams

Humans like the puddle were created because of the constants of nature, if the constants were different there would be no Universe, puddle was created to fit exactly inside that space but Humans have leaved their space (Tropical Forests) long time ago, they have even left the earth something that the puddle can't do, at the end the puddle vaporizes and and becomes a cloud, perfect simile for the afterlife, thanks Atheists!

The Second argument is a swallow argument, if the Universe was supposed to create life why rest of the Universe is inhospitable to life?
I think this argument can be put like this "If the Universe was supposed to create life why the Sun is lifeless? or why the Moon is lifeless? or why the earth we sit on is lifeless?" It doesn't make any sense because life depends on lifeless things.

The fine-tuning argument


The argument goes like this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design
2. It is not due to law or chance
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design

What does it meaning to be fine-tuned for life?


Here are the facts on the fine-tuning:

• Life has certain minimal requirements; long-term stable source of energy, a large number of different chemical elements, an element that can serve as a hub for joining together other elements into compounds, etc.
• In order to meet these minimal requirements, the physical constants, (such as the gravitational constant), and the ratios between physical constants, need to be withing a narrow range of values in order to support the minimal requirements for life of any kind.
• Slight changes to any of the physical constants, or to the rations between the constants, will result in a universe inhospitable to life.
• The range of possible ranges over 70 orders of magnitude.
• The constants are selected by whoever creates the universe. They are not determined by physical laws. And the extreme probabilities involved required put the fine-tuning beyond the reach of chance.
• Although each individual selection of constants and ratios is as unlikely as any other selection, the vast majority of these possibilities do not support the minimal requirements of life of any kind. (In the same way as any hand of 5 cards that is dealt is as likely as any other, but you are overwhelmingly likely NOT to get a royal flush. In our case, a royal flush is a life-permitting universe).

Examples of finely-tuned constants
Here are a couple of examples of the fine-tuning.

• if the strong force constant were 2% stronger, there would be no stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, no hydrogen containing compounds. This is because the single proton in hydrogen would want to stick to something else so badly that there would be no hydrogen left!
• if the strong force constant were 5% weaker, there would be no stable stars, few (if any) elements besides hydrogen. This is because you would be able to build up the nuclei of the heavier elements, which contain more than 1 proton.
• So, whether you adjust the strong force up or down, you lose stars than can serve as long-term sources of stable energy, or you lose chemical diversity, which is necessary to make beings that can perform the minimal requirements of living beings. (see below)

b) The conversion of beryllium to carbon, and carbon to oxygen

• Life requires carbon in order to serve as the hub for complex molecules, but it also requires oxygen in order to create water.
• Carbon is like the hub wheel in a tinker toy set: you can bind other elements together to more complicated molecules (e.g. – “carbon-based life), but the bonds are not so tight that they can’t be broken down again later to make something else.
• The carbon resonance level is determined by two constants: the strong force and electromagnetic force.
• If you mess with these forces even slightly, you either lose the carbon or the oxygen.

Either way, you’ve got no life of any conceivable kind.
Is the fine-tuning real?
Yes, it’s real and it is conceded by the top-rank of atheist physicists. Let me give you a citation from the best one of all, Martin Rees. Martin Rees is an atheist and a qualified astronomer. He wrote a book called “Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe”, (Basic Books: 2001). In it, he discusses 6 numbers that need to be fine-tuned in order to have a life-permitting universe.
Rees writes :

These six numbers constitute a ‘recipe’ for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be ‘untuned’, there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator?
​

There are some atheists who deny the fine-tuning, but these atheists are in firm opposition to the progress of science. The more science has progressed, the more constants, ratios and quantities we have discovered that need to be fine-tuned. Science is going in a theistic direction. Next, let’s see how atheists try to account for the fine-tuning, on atheism.


Atheistic responses to the fine-tuning argument


There are two common responses among atheists to this argument.
The first is to speculate that there are actually an infinite number of other universes that are not fine-tuned, (i.e. – the gambler’s fallacy). All these other universes don’t support life. We just happen to be in the one universe is fine-tuned for life. The problem is that there is no way of directly observing these other universes and no independent evidence that they exist.
Here is an excerpt from an article in Discover magazine, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non[bless and do not curse]religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
​

The second response by atheists is that the human observers that exist today, 14 billion years after the universe was created out of nothing, actually caused the fine-tuning. This solution would mean that although humans did not exist at the time the of the big bang, they are going to be able to reach back in time at some point in the future and manually fine-tune the universe.
Here is an excerpt from and article in the New Scientist, (which is hostile to theism and Christianity).

…maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation… observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.
​

So, there are two choices for atheists. Either an infinite number of unobservable universes that are not fine-tuned, or humans go back in time at some future point and fine-tune the beginning of the universe, billions of years in the past.

 

[TheStraightener]

Is a piece of bread finely tuned to accomodate the mold that eventually grows on it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The biggest nightmare of the New Atheists is the Fine Tuning of the Universe that demolished the argument that we are here by pure chance.

I'm certain that they don't see the fine tuning argument as a "nightmare" for their case at all. That is just hyperbole from Christian apologists.

Humans like the puddle were created because of the constants of nature, if the constants were different there would be no Universe

I think you mean that there would be a universe, but it would look different than ours.

We don't know if the constants even could be different, or what sort of statistical distribution would apply, or if those constants can be different in different parts of the universe, or if those constants can change over time.

There simply isn't enough that we know to make the fine tuning argument a strong one. The argument assumes that we know more than we can reliably know.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Kylie]

We should be able to find out if dark matter really exists or not since it i sin our own solar system.
[1211.0903] Dark matter chaos in the Solar System

Okay, and you were the one who brought up the subject of dark matter.

Are you able to address my questions from my previous posts?

 

[dysert]

The issue that I had raised is emergent order (aka spontaneous order and emergent complexity), which is order that arises from simplicity and without any top-down central planning.

"Spontaneous order"? Is that order which somehow instantly emerges from disorder?

 

[JimFit]

I'm certain that they don't see the fine tuning argument as a "nightmare" for their case at all. That is just hyperbole from Christian apologists.



I think you mean that there would be a universe, but it would look different than ours.

We don't know if the constants even could be different, or what sort of statistical distribution would apply, or if those constants can be different in different parts of the universe, or if those constants can change over time.

There simply isn't enough that we know to make the fine tuning argument a strong one. The argument assumes that we know more than we can reliably know.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ευδαιμονία

That we are here by chance is meaningful. We are either here by intention or not, if not then by definition we are here by chance.
What we have is evidence for fine-tuning. You don’t dispute that. What you dispute is what the evidence means. There are only two possibilities: chance or not chance, if not chance then we are here by intention. You have to ask yourself which of the two, given the evidence we have, is more plausible. Intention is clearly more plausible due to analogous reasoning. There is no reason to believe that fine-tuning is the result of chance. The only reason why people believe that it’s just a coincidence is because they wish to believe it.

If the constants were different in other parts of the Universe why we observe galaxies far away from us? If the constants could change there would be no galaxies because the constants could not follow the same way our galaxy was created! I don't think that's a serious argument, it is just wishful thinking.

Stephen Hawking has calculated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball.We don't talk about a different Universe without life support we talk about NO UNIVERSE! I don't think Atheism has a way to prove that it was an accident that we are here, even if the Theory of Everything is correct it doesn't explain why it explains how. If there are super Constants that explain the Constants then the super Constants demand an explanation but the explanation can't be to infinity, its pointless for atheists to use Infinity did it.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Nice additions JimFit! This is the only thing I take issue with:

"The constants are selected by whoever creates the universe. They are not determined by physical laws. And the extreme probabilities involved required put the fine-tuning beyond the reach of chance."

Through my own work on the causation of the universe by God, I have found that the constants are natural and very specific, not selected nor "intelligently designed".

Ready for this? The universe is the result of a reproductive act and time/space is biological. All of prophesy is the chart of distinct phase shifts and development of the organism as it is fulfilled. Does a mother intelligently design her fetus? Nope, even less involvement from the father.

The fine tuning arises not because of laws but because of very specific boundary condition imposed upon the universe by God. Because of this, each of infinite universe are finely tuned in the exact specific manner that ours is. This accounts for the dark energy constant right on the money.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Is a piece of bread finely tuned to accomodate the mold that eventually grows on it?

Yes. Without the finely tuned universe, there would be no bread or mold or atoms to compose them. There would be no 100 trillion bacterial organisms in your gut, essential to your health and life. They outnumber your body cells by 10 to 1. You are saying "Hey look at this finely tuned body I get to walk around in!" They are saying "Look at this finely tuned universe we get to walk around in!"

You are a finely tuned luxury cruise liner for tiny beasties.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

No one can make sense of it, including those who are trained in the fields you claim to be discussing.

I am still learning to speak your language.

Every breakthrough in science was communicated to the scientific community in an understandable manner, including real experimental observations to back them up.

And that takes time.

 

[TheStraightener]

Yes. Without the finely tuned universe, there would be no bread or mold or atoms to compose them. There would be no 100 trillion bacterial organisms in your gut, essential to your health and life. They outnumber your body cells by 10 to 1. You are saying "Hey look at this finely tuned body I get to walk around in!" They are saying "Look at this finely tuned universe we get to walk around in!"

You are a finely tuned luxury cruise liner for tiny beasties.

Lol I guess I am.

Would you agree that if I was tuned slightly differently then a different form of beastie would be a stowaway on my body?

And also am i finely tuned to carry potentially fatal Cancers, viruses and diseases?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. Without the finely tuned universe, there would be no bread or mold or atoms to compose them. There would be no 100 trillion bacterial organisms in your gut, essential to your health and life. They outnumber your body cells by 10 to 1. You are saying "Hey look at this finely tuned body I get to walk around in!" They are saying "Look at this finely tuned universe we get to walk around in!"

You are a finely tuned luxury cruise liner for tiny beasties.

Then it isn't so much a finely tuned universe as it is a feedback system. It's like a person claiming that they have won every hand of blackjack ever played while suffering from a mental condition that makes them forget all of the hands they lost.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Then it isn't so much a finely tuned universe as it is a feedback system. It's like a person claiming that they have won every hand of blackjack ever played while suffering from a mental condition that makes them forget all of the hands they lost.

It's finely tuned to be able to nest greater and greater amounts of information and co-operation in smaller and smaller spaces.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's finely tuned to be able to nest greater and greater amounts of information and co-operation in smaller and smaller spaces.

Who is there to record the universes that are not finely tuned for life?

 

[keith99]

A universe and world finely tuned so that all must struggle to survive and all eventually die.

Does this support the creator being a kind and loving God or Satan being the creator?

 

[Eudaimonist]

That we are here by chance is meaningful. We are either here by intention or not, if not then by definition we are here by chance.
What we have is evidence for fine-tuning. You don’t dispute that. What you dispute is what the evidence means. There are only two possibilities: chance or not chance, if not chance then we are here by intention. You have to ask yourself which of the two, given the evidence we have, is more plausible.

No, it's not as simple as that. I agree that either the universe is the way it is through intention or no intention. However, when it comes to knowledge claims, we have to admit when we don't really know enough to approach the issue with any confidence.

Given the evidence we have, intention is not well supported. It amounts to wishful thinking on the part of theists. We have no evidence that the constants of the universe can be changed or set by anyone's intention, or that there is any intending being capable of doing such a thing.

As I see it, the case for fine-tuning fails.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[JimFit]

Who is there to record the universes that are not finely tuned for life?

The "delusional" Universes that are not Fine Tuned for life aren't even created. The creation of life was a Deterministic event, we know that the Universe's rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang must not be smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million because it will collapse on itself. If one Constant was different it could make the other Constants unstable and destroy the whole Universe. I think the Atheistic argument for other delusional Universes that are created without life isn't valid!

 

[JimFit]

No, it's not as simple as that. I agree that either the universe is the way it is through intention or no intention. However, when it comes to knowledge claims, we have to admit when we don't really know enough to approach the issue with any confidence.

Given the evidence we have, intention is not well supported. It amounts to wishful thinking on the part of theists. We have no evidence that the constants of the universe can be changed or set by anyone's intention, or that there is any intending being capable of doing such a thing.

As I see it, the case for fine-tuning fails.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ευδαιμονία

Your argument goes like this

"I don't accept the constants, they are not constants, Scientists are wrong"

"I believe the constants can be different"

"Therefor the argument for Fine Tuning is invalid"

Your arguments are based on ignorance not facts, the only fact we have now is that constants are really constant...

 

[JimFit]

A universe and world finely tuned so that all must struggle to survive and all eventually die.

Does this support the creator being a kind and loving God or Satan being the creator?

Struggle to survive? That's a little dramatic, don't you think? An atheist like you is nothing more than part of Nature and the Naturalistic Law therefor it doesn't make any sense to blame Nature as merciless, the fact that you find unfair the Naturalistic Law is proof that you can place yourself above Nature and Materialism by compare it with a higher standard of Morality that doesn't steam from Nature.

 

[HitchSlap]

Struggle to survive? That's a little dramatic, don't you think? An atheist like you is nothing more than part of Nature and the Naturalistic Law therefor it doesn't make any sense to blame Nature as merciless, the fact that you find unfair the Naturalistic Law is proof that you can place yourself above Nature and Materialism by compare it with a higher standard of Morality that doesn't steam from Nature.

You seem to be projecting here.

As for morality, it is subjective, evolve's, and mine is higher than the bible's.