-
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.
A finely tuned universe that points to a God.
- Thread starter Usus Vox Tractus
- Start date
Hmm...
Are you going to be consistend with that? We can't observe it, therefore it's farytale?
Ok, good. Nice to see that you acknowledge the non-existence of any gods.
But of course, for that you needed to be internally consistend with your argument, which I don't expect you to be.
As I've explained: It's not as much a question if the multiverse actually exists or not, it's a question about if it works, if there are models that would make it concievable and if these models hold up.
You say that whenever the multiverse comes up, you don't have to consider it anymore, because it can't be demonstrated... and that seems to be your reason for actually making an additional step, to say that it actually doesn't exist.
And I'm glad that this also settles the entire debate about god and a fine-tuning, because I hate to break it to you, even if your assesment of the multiverse were absolutly correct, it would also apply to any fine-tuner or any fine-tuning of the universe...
Which closes this argument with you.
Thanks for playing
You can't have the same argument about God because God created the Universe, the Creation is proof of a Creator because the Universe is Finite, Deterministic and Fine Tuned and that shows intention and not chance and of course i have a Mind therefor i know from first place that a Mind exist , i know from first place what a Mind is to deny it, the different between my Mind and God's Mind is that God's Mind is omniscience and since Jesus said that i can reach perfection just like God it gives me the option to think like God.
The Multiverse is a fairy tale that doesn't even explain the Fine Tuning even if it existed, watch the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3jvfvho3CE
Upvote
0
Are you talking about the Cosmological Constant or all the other Constants? Please show me how the Cosmological Constant isn't a constant, your first paper didn't answered the question.
Upvote
0
There is a paper from the astronomer Luke A. Barnes about the Fine tuning of the Cosmological Constant and the order of magnitute here
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf
Victor Stenger responds to calculations showing the need for fine-tuning by speculating that future calculations will overturn the ones we have now:
The Cosmological Constant, Lambda
The cosmological constant problem is described in the textbook of Burgess & Moore (2006) as arguably the most severe theoretical problem in high-energy physics today, as measured by both the difference between observations and theoretical predictions, and by the lack of convincing theoretical ideas which address it. A well-understood and well-tested theory of fundamental physics (Quantum Field Theory QFT) predicts contributions to the vacuum energy of the universe that are [approx.] 10^120 times greater than the observed total value. Stengers reply is guided by the following principle:
Any calculation that disagrees with the data by 50 or 120 orders of magnitude is simply wrong and should not be taken seriously. We just have to await the correct calculation. [FOFT p. 219]
This seems indistinguishable from reasoning that the calculation must be wrong since otherwise the cosmological constant would have to be fine-tuned. One could not hope for a more perfect example of begging the question. More importantly, there is a misunderstanding in Stengers account of the cosmological constant problem. The problem is not that physicists have made an incorrect prediction. We can use the term dark energy for any form of energy that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, including a bare cosmological constant (see Barnes et al., 2005, for an introduction to dark energy). Cosmological observations constrain the total dark energy. QFT [quantum field theory - VJT] allows us to calculate a number of contributions to the total dark energy from matter fields in the universe. Each of these contributions turns out to be 10^120 times larger than the total. There is no direct theory-vs.-observation contradiction as one is calculating and measuring different things. The fine-tuning problem is that these different independent contributions, including perhaps some that we dont know about, manage to cancel each other to such an alarming, life-permitting degree. This is not a straightforward case of Popperian falsification. (pp. 34-35)
The cosmological constant problem is described in the textbook of Burgess & Moore (2006) as arguably the most severe theoretical problem in high-energy physics today, as measured by both the difference between observations and theoretical predictions, and by the lack of convincing theoretical ideas which address it. A well-understood and well-tested theory of fundamental physics (Quantum Field Theory QFT) predicts contributions to the vacuum energy of the universe that are [approx.] 10^120 times greater than the observed total value. Stengers reply is guided by the following principle:
Any calculation that disagrees with the data by 50 or 120 orders of magnitude is simply wrong and should not be taken seriously. We just have to await the correct calculation. [FOFT p. 219]
This seems indistinguishable from reasoning that the calculation must be wrong since otherwise the cosmological constant would have to be fine-tuned. One could not hope for a more perfect example of begging the question. More importantly, there is a misunderstanding in Stengers account of the cosmological constant problem. The problem is not that physicists have made an incorrect prediction. We can use the term dark energy for any form of energy that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, including a bare cosmological constant (see Barnes et al., 2005, for an introduction to dark energy). Cosmological observations constrain the total dark energy. QFT [quantum field theory - VJT] allows us to calculate a number of contributions to the total dark energy from matter fields in the universe. Each of these contributions turns out to be 10^120 times larger than the total. There is no direct theory-vs.-observation contradiction as one is calculating and measuring different things. The fine-tuning problem is that these different independent contributions, including perhaps some that we dont know about, manage to cancel each other to such an alarming, life-permitting degree. This is not a straightforward case of Popperian falsification. (pp. 34-35)
Upvote
0
Special pleeding.
"Let me set up this rules, that have to apply, until they become inconvenient for me. Then we can ignore them."
I really wish that I was surprised, but sadly, I had been more surprised, if this didn't show up eventually.
...because God created the Universe, the Creation is proof of a Creator...[/quote]
Actually, no.
Reality is proof of a realter.
Word-games like that are fun, aren't they?
Unfortunatelly, it falls flat, because I can simply reject your assertion that it is "creation".
Some quantum physisists might want to have a word with you on that.
Assertion without evidence.
Assertion without evidence.
I never said it was based on chance, so now your just making up stuff you want your oponents to hold, instead of what they actually think.
Sure... if you have a mind, a mind exists. Hey, I have a hand, therefore hands exist. Tautologies are not arguments.
Aaaand we end with a huge number of unsuported claims that don't even fallow from anything you've said before.
This must be a new record or something.
It also doesn't explain dragons, unicorns and the great and powerfull Oz.
I'm not concerned that a model doesn't explain things that are just asserted without any evidence.
Unless you demonstrate that the universe is fine tuned, the multiverse doesn't need to explain it.
And again, you seemed to miss the point I've made when talking about the universe, but that's ok...
Given your rambeling here, I'm not even sure you've read anything anybody here has writen, or that you don't even care if any of your statements are even part of a coherent argument.
I guess that's it with that.
Upvote
0
And Stenger wrote a lengthy rebuttal, which Barnes didn't reply to (I believe).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359v1.pdf
Stenger's essential (correct) point - the universe is not anywhere near as fine-tuned as theists pretend - nowhere near - and Barnes fails to disprove that assertion. Alas, we won't have any more papers from Stenger as he passed away a month ago...a great shame
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
This is the ideal Universe for you.
That would be a good example of a finely tuned universe if it was the whole universe.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
God is the Mind that created the Universe, how does this apply to special pleading when humans are the images of God and they have minds that can understand the Universe? Your chance doesn't exist, get over it.
Actually, no.
Reality is proof of a realter.
Word-games like that are fun, aren't they?
Unfortunatelly, it falls flat, because I can simply reject your assertion that it is "creation".
That doesn't make sense, we are here, we all live in the same Universe. Why we are here? Because the Universe was created. was our creation random or deterministic? It was Deterministic and not random.
Carbon-12 --Does Its Creation in Stars Suggest a Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? (Today's Most Popular)
Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study -- ScienceDaily
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/
If something is Deterministic it proves a Creation, if it didn't Atheists wouldn't propose a mindless Mother Universe that C R E A T E S Universes. You can't have a Deterministic event from a Random Event.
Special pleading and ignorance about the quantum world, quantum physics ARE NOT RANDOM. Ask a physicist.
Q: If quantum mechanics says everything is random, then how can it also be the most accurate theory ever? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
LOL
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life by Luke A. Barnes
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf
The Fine Tuning for Discoverability by Robin Collins
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf
Where is your peer reviewed paper about chance?
Either we are here by chance or by intention, the Fine Tuning shows intention and not chance, you have no evidence about chance, i have evidence for intention.
If we are not here by intention by definition we are here by chance, there is no third way, if there is let me hear it.
If Minds DO exist how can God doesn't exist? The difference you have with God is that He is Perfect, that doesn't mean that you can't be also perfect. Jesus is clear that we can reach God if we follow his teachings about humility, patience, love, forgiveness and so on and so forth...
My argument isn't that hard to understand, if our Minds can reach perfection how can you exclude a Mind that it is already perfect? The fact that our Minds can became better and better and better is proof that there is a higher principle.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life by Luke A. Barnes
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf
The Fine Tuning for Discoverability by Robin Collins
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf
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.
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. . . .
Last edited:
Upvote
0
YOU said, that the multiverse doesn't exist, because we can't prove that it does. The same for god. But for god, you make an exeption and say that he can exist even though we can't demonstrate him.
Special pleading.
Assertion. Calling it "creation" already assums a creation. And unless you can, calling it "creation" is unjustified.
I don't know.
And I don't know that these two are the only options. If you said "was it random or not random", THEN we would have a proper dichotomy, but the way you set it up is unjustified.
Also: Even if I said "deterministic", this would NOT point to a creator. "Deterministic" does NOT mean "deliberatly set up".
Thanks for the "Evolution is deterministic" article, btw.
Because this proves my point.
Here they say that it is deterministic and not random... and yet they DON'T say that therefore it is intelligently guided or deliberatly set up. Because being "deterministic" and "set up", or "deliberate" or anything you need to claim intention are NOT the same.
Nope. Not at all. There is nothing about something being deterministic that even IMPLIES a creation, let alone proves one. I could just as well say "everything that is green proves that it doesn't have a creator". It's the same nonsensical connection between two unrelated features.
COMPLETE non-sequitor.
Also, this isn't proposed by "atheists", this is proposed by some cosmologists... and I have no idea how you connect this to any god claim, because even if this "mother universe" was reality, it would neither prove, nor disprove a god.
Sure, it would make a god unnecessary as part of a hypothesis... but he already is. So this proposition makes no sense on many levels.
So? I never proposed any random event. So this statement is pointless.
Never said they were. Go back and read my comment.
Also, even if I did: This would NOT be a special pleading fallacy. It would be a fallcy, but not special pleading. Learn your fallacy, before you use the labels.
"If Quantum Physics is random, how come... etc, etc..."
I never said it was random. Strawman-fallacy.
See, THAT'S an actual fallacy that applies to what you've said.
You claim that I've said something, which I haven't, just to attack this made up position, because it's easier to attack that, than my actual position.
Strawmen-fallacy. I've never said anything about chance.
Also, where is the peer reviewed stuff about the fine-tuning?
Your papers don't seem to qualify, as far as I can tell.
False dichotomy.
Then present it.
And stop telling me that I have to present evidence for a position I don't take.
I never said he couldn't.
But your argument seems to be again a non-sequitor...
Why would the existence of mind point to a god? Just because he is also a mind? Well, big deal! Fairies also have minds! This does not mean that the existence of our minds points to fairies!
Assertion. Also, perfect by what standard? His own?
Big deal! I'm also perfect by my own standard, this means that god can't be perfect... by my standard.
Nonsensical!
I don't know what you mean by "perfect".
And even if you could describe something that might hypothetically be a perfect mind, this would not automatically mean, that it also had to exist!
Sorry, but you've made fallacies at pretty much each corner. Not one sentence actually seems logically sound.
Please try again.
Upvote
0
Then how does Collins explain the fact that around 90% of our genome is collecting mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift?
Upvote
0
Negative selection can be detected using Ka/Ks rates and other methods. These are not assumptions. We are not assuming that there is a lack of evidence for negative selection in 90% of the genome. The EVIDENCE is that there is no evidence for negative selection in 90% of the genome.
Apparently, you can't deal with that evidence.
The majority of change in genome sequences is due to neutral mutations. There is still the question of whether or not the majority of mutations that change phenotype are neutral or not.
Upvote
0
Smidlee
Veteran
Then you got someone like James Shapiro who think the mutations aren't random at all and he seems to have data to backup his view.
It's does make sense though the human genome has been degenerating since creation and will probably continue to do so in the future. Evolutionists also believe mankind is becoming less fit and their solution to the problem is death of the weakest.
It's does make sense though the human genome has been degenerating since creation and will probably continue to do so in the future. Evolutionists also believe mankind is becoming less fit and their solution to the problem is death of the weakest.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have dealt with Shapiro's work as well. His salesmanship falls way short of the reality. His claims about "non-random" mutations boil down to the strategy of poor people buying more lottery tickets than rich people as an example of a non-random lottery.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
