A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

Eudaimonist · Sep 27, 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY

There are several good points made in this video relating to issues of just how livable the universe is, the problems with probabilistic reasoning on this issue, and other important issues.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Usus Vox Tractus · Sep 27, 2014

RichardParker said:
The universe isn't fine tuned for life. I don't understand how anybody could make that claims.
If I looked at the universe and had to prescribe an intention for which it was finely tuned, I would guess more in the direction of empty space. Or black holes. Or just the goal of running out of usuable energy.
The idea that it is finelly tuned for life is like looking at a lake full of toxic waste, which has one small corner the wast hasn't penetrated yet (but inevidably will in the future), in which some microorganisms live, clinging for their life, and then say that this lake has been finely tuned for these microbes.

Life seems like an extreme after-thought of this universe.
Sure, different valuables for the universe would lead to different universes... some hardly able to exist, some more stable. And maybe some more suitable for life, but even if not:
If you draw one cart out of a deck of a billion carts, the cart you'll draw has a 1:1000000000 chance of being drawn... and yet it got drawn!
Rare things happen all the time. It only becomes remarkeble, once we attribute meaning to some events and not others. And it's nice that some here think that our existence is the ONE cart that HAS to be drawn, for some reason, but unless there is justification, the universe we have is just the one we have... No justification of inserting anything else.

Also, the argument applies that the universe even COULD have unfolded in a different way. I don't even know if that's possible. And if the universe could have only unfolded in one way, then there certainly isn't any fine-tuning that needs to be done.

So either way, if the universe could have looked differently or if it couldn't, so far there is no justification to claim fine-tuning... unless of course you can demonstrate a fine-tuner.

Welcome to the conversation my tigery friend! Yes the universe is "finely tuned" for space. Or else God overwhelms the existence of any and every thing. Space was the first thing created or else their is no separation between heaven and earth or anything for that matter. Space is required for life.

Space is also what stars blow their atomic building blocks into to form nebular clouds. Nebular clouds are stirred by circularly polarized light to form chiral organic molecules and the building blocks of RNA. Space and radiation is required for life.

Know what else space does? It directly patterns for DNA structure.

@ 4:03 a plasma crystal (inert dust in an ionized gas in zero-G) in free rotation is cryogenically cooled. It condenses into a double helix with rungs. Copacetic Funky Plasma Crystal Study | Anacephalaeosis

Now that is what I call, extremely fine tuning!

But this phrase "fine tuning" is misleading and actually woefully inadequate. It has all the hallmarks of big-bang, male external, thought up, separatism. As if Big Male God with his super smart brain and giant God hands with sausage fingers just thought a whole bunch and came up with the best idea and forced it into being. Ridiculous.

God is infinite and eternal, the universe is finite and temporal. The only place the universe can exist is inside the infinite body of God. Spiritualy God is the Father of the universe but physically God is the Mother of the universe and space itself is Her womb. The universe is "finely tuned" for life because it was created in a biological reproductive act, a Genesis.

An infinite God generates infinite universes all at once and repeatedly. Universes are still being created. They are all finely tuned in the exact same manner due to their bio-physical origin, specific arrangement and the flows of God between them.

Usus Vox Tractus · Sep 27, 2014

TheStraightener said:
We don't get along fine with the diseases that kill us though do we. We don't get along fine with Cancers and Tumors etc. You seem to be sidestepping the main issue here.

No, you don't get along fine with microbes when you are given "vaccines" that hard boost your immune system into inflammatory response in direct opposition to the mammalian genetic phenotype that prevents inflammatory response while the immune system is learning what is self and not self.

You also do not get along fine when you take tons of antibiotics that kill your gut flora indiscriminately.

You do not get along fine when through the course of your life you eat chemically processed dead food, fit only for bacterial scavengers and predators.

You do not get along fine when through horrible diet your body turns acidic and cancers, fungus and bad bacteria have a jumping jamboree in your self/societally degraded body.

You don't get along fine with the universe when you are immersed in a society that is in ignorant opposition to true universal laws and harmony, producing toxins and pollutants into the environment like there was no tomorrow.

People get cancer and disease, because human culture has become a cancer and a disease on the planet.

JimFit · Sep 27, 2014

TheStraightener said:
I didn't have an argument. I merely asked in this fine tuned universe are we fine tuned to be killed by these things. I don't care about their intention, the fact is we are at the mercy of viruses and bacteria... Was this gods intention? It's a question. Not an argument.

Life needs bacteria to exist and evolve, it is like the paradigm with the knife, i can use the knife to kill someone, does that mean that knifes are bad? Should God destroy all knifes? That's stupid. Lets take for example Leukemia, what God must do? To destroy all white blood cells? Diseases exist because of the way of life, someone is perfectly healthy, he do heavy drugs. his child has a higher percent chance to be born with an illness that it wouldn't had if its father didn't do drugs, the same applies for every kind of disease.

JimFit · Sep 27, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
There are several good points made in this video relating to issues of just how livable the universe is, the problems with probabilistic reasoning on this issue, and other important issues.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Ευδαιμονία

"Debunked"? lol. This video doesn't provide counter argument for Fine Tuning.

0:20

Anecdotal Fallacy

0:27

Appeal to emotion fallacy

1:16

Straw Man fallacy

2:00

Ambiguity fallacy

3:55

Burden of Proof fallacy

8:25

Gamblers fallacy

JimFit · Sep 27, 2014

RichardParker said:
The universe isn't fine tuned for life. I don't understand how anybody could make that claims.
If I looked at the universe and had to prescribe an intention for which it was finely tuned, I would guess more in the direction of empty space. Or black holes. Or just the goal of running out of usuable energy.
The idea that it is finelly tuned for life is like looking at a lake full of toxic waste, which has one small corner the wast hasn't penetrated yet (but inevidably will in the future), in which some microorganisms live, clinging for their life, and then say that this lake has been finely tuned for these microbes.

Life seems like an extreme after-thought of this universe.
Sure, different valuables for the universe would lead to different universes... some hardly able to exist, some more stable. And maybe some more suitable for life, but even if not:
If you draw one cart out of a deck of a billion carts, the cart you'll draw has a 1:1000000000 chance of being drawn... and yet it got drawn!
Rare things happen all the time. It only becomes remarkeble, once we attribute meaning to some events and not others. And it's nice that some here think that our existence is the ONE cart that HAS to be drawn, for some reason, but unless there is justification, the universe we have is just the one we have... No justification of inserting anything else.

Also, the argument applies that the universe even COULD have unfolded in a different way. I don't even know if that's possible. And if the universe could have only unfolded in one way, then there certainly isn't any fine-tuning that needs to be done.

So either way, if the universe could have looked differently or if it couldn't, so far there is no justification to claim fine-tuning... unless of course you can demonstrate a fine-tuner.

I suggest you to go back to page 13 of this thread and read my whole reply about the Fine Tuning. 122.

Eudaimonist · Sep 27, 2014

JimFit said:
Ευδαιμονία

"Debunked"? lol. This video doesn't provide counter argument for Fine Tuning.

0:20

Anecdotal Fallacy

0:27

Appeal to emotion fallacy

1:16

Straw Man fallacy

2:00

Ambiguity fallacy

3:55

Burden of Proof fallacy

8:25

Gamblers fallacy

Please explain how what was argued are fallacies. Don't just say that they are.

eudaimonia,

Mark

JimFit · Sep 27, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
Please explain how what was argued are fallacies. Don't just say that they are.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Ευδαιμονία

Even from the preview of the video Gamblers fallacy is there, on the table of cards! LOL
There is nothing that needs to be explained, someone can mark the timeline, listen the argument and google the fallacy, its simple.

Eudaimonist · Sep 28, 2014

JimFit said:
Ευδαιμονία

Even from the preview of the video Gamblers fallacy is there, on the table of cards! LOL

A table of cards does not prove any fallacy. Your credibility with me in detecting logical fallacies is low at this point.

There is nothing that needs to be explained, someone can mark the timeline, listen the argument and google the fallacy, its simple.

Sorry, but I don't want to go on a wild goose chase looking for fallacies that aren't actually there. I'm not a mind-reader, and I don't know how you interpret the arguments in the video.

The only way that we can properly communicate is if you were to do the following for at least one (preferably all) of the fallacies that you have claimed are present:

1) Explain the fallacious argument in the video in your own words.
2) Give a link to a reputable source for the fallacy. Bonus points for briefly explaining the fallacy in your own words.
3) Explain how the fallacy applies to the argument.

eudaimonia,

Mark

JimFit · Sep 28, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
A table of cards does not prove any fallacy. Your credibility with me in detecting logical fallacies is low at this point.

Sorry, but I don't want to go on a wild goose chase looking for fallacies that aren't actually there. I'm not a mind-reader, and I don't know how you interpret the arguments in the video.

The only way that we can properly communicate is if you were to do the following for at least one (preferably all) of the fallacies that you have claimed are present:

1) Explain the fallacious argument in the video in your own words.
2) Give a link to a reputable source for the fallacy. Bonus points for briefly explaining the fallacy in your own words.
3) Explain how the fallacy applies to the argument.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Ευδαιμόνια

I can't post links yet. This video talks about delusional Multiverses as an answer to the Fine Tuning, they try to move the Fine Tuning problem to chance when chance doesn't exist. Chance is a philosophical idea that often Atheists use to tell that we are Cosmic mistakes and there was no intention to be created. Please watch the video, google the fallacies and you will see that i am right.

Eudaimonist · Sep 28, 2014

JimFit said:
Ευδαιμόνια

I can't post links yet. This video talks about delusional Multiverses as an answer to the Fine Tuning, they try to move the Fine Tuning problem to chance when chance doesn't exist. Chance is a philosophical idea that often Atheists use to tell that we are Cosmic mistakes and there was no intention to be created. Please watch the video, google the fallacies and you will see that i am right.

Sorry, what you write above just isn't convincing enough to make the effort. I can understand being philosophically opposed to the idea of "Chance", but it isn't a logical fallacy.

I'll tell you what. I can post links. Here is the basic description of the Gambler's fallacy:

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future, or that if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

Tell me how and where the video makes this fallacy. You get -100 points if you just mention that a gaming table and a deck of cards was used in the video to make a point.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Lord Emsworth · Sep 28, 2014

JimFit said:
God is one because He is infinite, you can't use plural on something infinite, you can express God through universal values, Jesus said that you believe in God when you follow love, forgiveness, mercy, equality, philanthropy, peace, freedom, humility, patience. These are all accepted even by Atheists therefor the Word of God was the Truth because it is Universal. It doesn't matter if you think that God has four arms or that his name is Jim unless if your religion goes against Jesus Christ Teachings.

I am not detecting anything in that paragraph that even remotely addresses my semi-serios FTA turnaround.

But even so, there is lots of dubious and questionable stuff in there. For instance:
"you can't use plural on something infinite,"
I am not sure that is even true. But in any case it is completely beside the point.

You can alter an infinite set. In fact you can alter an infinite set in infinite ways. You can for instance take the set of all integers (which is infinite) and throw out the "3" which gives you the set of "all integers without 3" (which is infinite too). You can add 984.8764 to the set, which gives you the set of "all integers and 984.8764 but without 3". And so on and so forth.

Likewise with Gods. We could define all sorts of Gods, in all sorts of variations.
- No compassion, some compassion, a lot of compassion.
- Totally daft, a little daft, not daft at all.
- A high preference for carbon based lifeforms, some preference for carbon based lifeforms, a little preference for carbon based lifeforms, no preference for carbon based lifeforms.

And so on and so forth. YMMV. But nevertheless ... Many, many, many characteristicsts in many, many, many more variations than those lousy, miserable number of fine-tuning-constants that are being bandied about.

RichardParker · Sep 28, 2014

JimFit said:
I suggest you to go back to page 13 of this thread and read my whole reply about the Fine Tuning. 122.

I did.
Wasn't convinced.
Too many baseless assertions, too much retro-activly fitting the data to the conclusion one wants to arrive.

"The argument goes like this:

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

Well, I disagree with number 1, because you can't know if these are all the possible options.
It also already asserts fine-tuning, which I reject, since it hasn't been supported.
It also implies that there could be other ways the universe could have unfolded, which I find unsuported as well.

I also disagree with number two, since you can't justify excluding either of them.
...
Let me just say, that I absolutly agree, that, if this universe were any different, then life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist.
So what?
-We don't know if the universe could have been any different.
-We don't know if there couldn't be other potential universes which would have been much better suited for life than this one (which is extremly poorly suited).
-We have no justification to say that this universe is in any way special, just because WE value the fact that it allows the life that WE are part of.

But these three things are essential to the argument.
So, can you support any of them?

Usus Vox Tractus · Sep 28, 2014

RichardParker said:
I did.
Wasn't convinced.
Too many baseless assertions, too much retro-activly fitting the data to the conclusion one wants to arrive.

"The argument goes like this:

The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design

It is not due to law or chance

Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design"

Well, I disagree with number 1, because you can't know if these are all the possible options.
It also already asserts fine-tuning, which I reject, since it hasn't been supported.
It also implies that there could be other ways the universe could have unfolded, which I find unsuported as well.

I also disagree with number two, since you can't justify excluding either of them.
...
Let me just say, that I absolutly agree, that, if this universe were any different, then life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist.
So what?
-We don't know if the universe could have been any different.
-We don't know if there couldn't be other potential universes which would have been much better suited for life than this one (which is extremly poorly suited).
-We have no justification to say that this universe is in any way special, just because WE value the fact that it allows the life that WE are part of.

But these three things are essential to the argument.
So, can you support any of them?

Question: A fetus forms neither by chance nor is directly intelligently designed by either parent. What is the relationship between Mother and developing baby?

I can show "fine tuning" as a result of pure geometry and border conditions.

Eudaimonist · Sep 28, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
Question: A fetus forms neither by chance nor intelligently designed by either parent.

How are you defining "chance" here?

eudaimonia,

Mark

JimFit · Sep 28, 2014

Lord Emsworth said:
I am not detecting anything in that paragraph that even remotely addresses my semi-serios FTA turnaround.

But even so, there is lots of dubious and questionable stuff in there. For instance:
"you can't use plural on something infinite,"
I am not sure that is even true. But in any case it is completely beside the point.

You can alter an infinite set. In fact you can alter an infinite set in infinite ways. You can for instance take the set of all integers (which is infinite) and throw out the "3" which gives you the set of "all integers without 3" (which is infinite too). You can add 984.8764 to the set, which gives you the set of "all integers and 984.8764 but without 3". And so on and so forth.

God is infinite, you can't have 2 infinities its a paradox, it is like having 2 nothings.

Lord Emsworth said:
Likewise with Gods. We could define all sorts of Gods, in all sorts of variations.
- No compassion, some compassion, a lot of compassion.
- Totally daft, a little daft, not daft at all.
- A high preference for carbon based lifeforms, some preference for carbon based lifeforms, a little preference for carbon based lifeforms, no preference for carbon based lifeforms.

Yes you can, that doesn't mean that everything you contribute to God is Truth, we are the images of God therefor the truth of God reflects to us.

Lord Emsworth said:
And so on and so forth. YMMV. But nevertheless ... Many, many, many characteristicsts in many, many, many more variations than those lousy, miserable number of fine-tuning-constants that are being bandied about.

What do you mean by that?

Usus Vox Tractus · Sep 28, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
How are you defining "chance" here?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Spontaneous arising. However it gets there, the egg of the mother requires a male sperm to create a developing fetus. The egg does not become one on it's own by "chance".

Eudaimonist · Sep 28, 2014

Usus Vox Tractus said:
Spontaneous arising.

Okay. Do you believe that spontaneous arising is something that ever happens? (Not necessarily regarding biological reproduction.)

However it gets there, the egg of the mother requires a male sperm to create a developing fetus. The egg does not become one on it's own by "chance".

So, then what would you call this alternative to chance? Natural processes, perhaps?

eudaimonia,

Mark

JimFit · Sep 28, 2014

RichardParker said:
I did.
Wasn't convinced.
Too many baseless assertions, too much retro-activly fitting the data to the conclusion one wants to arrive.

"The argument goes like this:

The fine-tuning of the universe to support life is either due to law, chance or design

It is not due to law or chance

Therefore, the fine-tuning is due to design"

Well, I disagree with number 1, because you can't know if these are all the possible options.
It also already asserts fine-tuning, which I reject, since it hasn't been supported.
It also implies that there could be other ways the universe could have unfolded, which I find unsuported as well.

You disagree without giving me a proof that the Fine Tuning is wrong, you have your beliefs that you are a Cosmic mistake that Nothingness spewed but that doesn't make it real.
Either we are here by chance or intention there is no third option, what we have is proof of intention, the Fine Tuning is proof of intention.
It doesn't imply that the Universe could be unfolded differently, it implies that the only way to have a Universe is this way, remember the Tuner sets the conditions.

RichardParker said:
I also disagree with number two, since you can't justify excluding either of them.
...
Let me just say, that I absolutly agree, that, if this universe were any different, then life AS WE KNOW IT couldn't exist.
So what?
-We don't know if the universe could have been any different.
-We don't know if there couldn't be other potential universes which would have been much better suited for life than this one (which is extremly poorly suited).
-We have no justification to say that this universe is in any way special, just because WE value the fact that it allows the life that WE are part of.

-We know that the Universe couldn't be any different and survive, if we change the rate of the expansion in the beginning the Universe collapses on itself.
-We know that there are no other Universes because we don't have proof for them and they are simply destroyed by Boltzmann Brain Paradox.
Its a baseless claim that life in the Universe is poorly suited.
-The "fine tuning" as applied to anthropic principle doesn't necessarily mean it implies that the universe should be teeming with life. It only proposed that the fine tuning made life as we know it possible. (and that includes anything we know about life which include skydiving)

RichardParker said:
But these three things are essential to the argument.
So, can you support any of them?

The Cosmological Constant only works in one part of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, if you believe that chance did it then you have a strong belief.

JimFit · Sep 28, 2014

Eudaimonist said:
Sorry, what you write above just isn't convincing enough to make the effort. I can understand being philosophically opposed to the idea of "Chance", but it isn't a logical fallacy.

I'll tell you what. I can post links. Here is the basic description of the Gambler's fallacy:

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future, or that if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature).

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell me how and where the video makes this fallacy. You get -100 points if you just mention that a gaming table and a deck of cards was used in the video to make a point.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Ευδαιμόνια

8:25 The girl says "If you have an infinite number of other Universes one of them is bound in the right conditions." Then she talks about Eternal Inflation which was debunked by BVG Theorem and the latest observations of Planck Telescope.

------------

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future, or that if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false. This fallacy can arise in many practical situations although it is most strongly associated with gambling where such mistakes are common among players.
The use of the term Monte Carlo fallacy originates from the most famous example of this phenomenon, which occurred in a Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.[

A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Member

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency