Are Universal Constants proof of design?

[Jeffwhosoever]

Consider nature's constants: Plank's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge of an electron, the speed of light, absolute zero temperature, etc, etc. All of these and many more "constants" were discovered, not invented, by scientists. None of them have "evolved" since the beginning of time. How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value? Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

 

[AV1611VET]

Consider nature's constants: Plank's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge of an electron, the speed of light, absolute zero temperature, etc, etc. All of these and many more "constants" were discovered, not invented, by scientists. None of them have "evolved" since the beginning of time. How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value? Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

I've wondered that, myself; and in my opinion, yes.

 

[Dr Doofenshmirtz]

Consider nature's constants: Plank's constant

A description of what is

the gravitational constant

A description of what is

the charge of an electron, the speed of light, absolute zero temperature, etc, etc.

All descriptions of what is, nothing more

All of these and many more "constants" were discovered, not invented, by scientists.

And they are all descriptions of what is, nothing more.

None of them have "evolved" since the beginning of time. How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value? Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

No boyo, they are nothing more that explanations and descriptions.
Although FAR more accurate than some OTHER explanations and descriptions we have been historically provided.
And demonstrated through empirical objectvie evidence


Which, from what I' ve heard, is a WONDERFUL thing!!

 

[Tenka]

Consider nature's constants: None of them have "evolved" since the beginning of time.

Why should we have expected them to in the absence of a designer?

How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value?

That makes no sense. How would you know if they were some other value?

Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

No it implies that matter and energy behave in predictable ways.

Sheer number of constants implies design? How many constants is the minimum you'd need to imply a designer? The question is ridiculous.
Since this is the only Universe we can observe and nobody knows if a god or gods are involved or to what degree nobody can rightfully conclude what to expect from a universe with or without god/gods.


In the absence of real conclusive evidence, whatever we see confirms our existing beliefs.

 

[Washington]

Consider nature's constants: Plank's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge of an electron, the speed of light, absolute zero temperature, etc, etc. All of these and many more "constants" were discovered, not invented, by scientists. None of them have "evolved" since the beginning of time. How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value? Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

No.

 

[Freodin]

Not quite. One might argue that they point to a "natural" designer... but they cannot be used as evidence for the omnipotent creator God that Christian creationists want to show.

Correctly considered, they would even contradict that omnipotent creator God.

"How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value?" you ask. Well, that question, taken literally, is quite easy to answer: they have to be some value. Any value. And regardless of what value they would take, you could ask: Why not some other value?

But I guess what you rather mean is: "Why are they exactly the value that fits together with all the other values and allows for our universe to exist?"
I have to admit that I can answer this only with "I don´t know." But there are possible answers that could explain this without resorting to a designer. One is that all these values are connected on a very basic level.

But the problem with these "constants" is much more basic. We know now that our universe would not exist in the current state, if these constants were different. This is the result of the interaction of all the involved particles and waves and energies and whatnot. We call these the "natural laws".

This "physical baseline" gives the rules of how all the stuff has to work in order to form our universe. This "pyhsical baseline" describes what would happen if "nature´s constants" would be different.

And here lies the false conclusion of the creationist argument. If all the constants had to be this way, to work within this framework of laws of nature, surely they had to be made this way?
No. Creationists ignore that, according to their own worldview, this whole framework of laws of nature is created. There is no "physical baseline" in the creationist world.

God does not only create the playing pieces... he creates the playground and all the rules. There is no necessity for "nature´s constants" to be any certain value in a universe he designed.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value?

You certainly seem to have a solution at hand ... Well?

Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

I have no idea what that means. Could you be a little bit more precise?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Consider nature's constants: Plank's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge of an electron, the speed of light, absolute zero temperature, etc, etc. All of these and many more "constants" were discovered, not invented, by scientists. None of them have "evolved" since the beginning of time.

Well, that's a matter of debate, but for sake of argument let's say they are constant.

How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value?

A lot of them are dependant on more fundamental constants. But how they got their values is also a matter of debate; the real answer is we simply don't know.

Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

Why would that in any way imply design ? Obviously, a Designer is one possible explanation, but it could just as easily be that they couldn't take any other value (just as the proton number of carbon must be 12; it can't be any higher or lower).

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would that in any way imply design ? Obviously, a Designer is one possible explanation, but it could just as easily be that they couldn't take any other value (just as the proton number of carbon must be 12; it can't be any higher or lower).

I think the point Jeff is making --- (and, Jeff, please correct me if I'm wrong) --- but I think the point Jeff is making is that we see these things as templates, created by a living God; whereas others see them as constants, created by nature.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Universal constants are proof of universal constants. Nothing more, nothing less. Any leap beyond that is pure philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Universal constants are proof of universal constants. Nothing more, nothing less. Any leap beyond that is pure philosophy.

What about universal templates created by a living God?

 

[Cabal]

Consider nature's constants: Plank's constant, the gravitational constant, the charge of an electron, the speed of light, absolute zero temperature, etc, etc. All of these and many more "constants" were discovered, not invented, by scientists.

Well, we can't exactly manipulate the fabric of the universe.

Yet.

None of them have "evolved" since the beginning of time.

Well.....maybe. One shouldn't get too comfy with the idea of something seeming constant. It may be a variable, just on a scale past our current ability to measure it.

How are they all exactly what they are, and not some other value?

Because.

Doesn't the sheer number of constants imply design, and hence a Designer?

Sheer number? I wouldn't have thought so. How many is too few to imply design? I would have thought the opposite myself - why would an omnipotent (important point to remember) designer need to set so many dials in order to create?

Constants mere reflect aspects of nature that are invariant (or so we think). Why should we assume that all aspects of nature should change or be fixed? Apart from anything else, the number of variables far outweighs the constants, more chaotic systems than stable ones. I think if your criterion for design is number of constants, that might create some awkward areas like that.

Apart from anything else, I think there's reason to believe that there's actually quite a bit of range that some of these interaction constants could be to still have the universe develop in the same way. I'll need to look that one up, though.

 

[Cabal]

What about universal templates created by a living God?

Case in point, Pete, I think.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What about universal templates created by a living God?

And that differs from a universal constant... how?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, we can't exactly manipulate the fabric of the universe.

Yet.

Back when I took a course on Oceanography, they told of an experiment the Soviets tried on two men (if I have the story right).

They put two men in a controlled environment and had them breathe pure oxygen for two weeks.

The idea was to get the nitrogen out of their lungs, so they wouldn't suffer problems with deep-sea diving, such as nitrogen narcosis and decompression sickness.

Both men died of lukemia.

 

[Cabal]

Back when I took a course on Oceanography, they told of an experiment the Soviets tried on two men (if I have the story right).

They put two men in a controlled environment and had them breathe pure oxygen for two weeks.

The idea was to get the nitrogen out of their lungs, so they wouldn't suffer problems with deep-sea diving, such as nitrogen narcosis and decompression sickness.

Both men died of lukemia.

Cool story, but I can't see how it relates.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been pure oxygen though, it's actually toxic at high levels, weirdly enough.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool story, but I can't see how it relates.

Don't mess with the Anthropic Principle.

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been pure oxygen though, it's actually toxic at high levels, weirdly enough.

If I remember correctly, they concluded that the body thought it didn't need as many blood cells anymore due to the "enrichment" and just shut down making as many.

 

[Mystman]

I think/speculate/guess that many of the universal constants might be like pi. Pi can't be anything else than 3.14... It's a logical impossibility for it to be anything else. Thinking about how it could be different makes my head hurt.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Yes my argument is that so many factors that our universe and life depend on, call them templates or constants, have to be a very exact numerical value, or the universe and life could not exist. How do you explain such without a designer being behind all of this?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

How do you explain such without a designer being behind all of this?

I would like to see how you explain it with "a designer being" ...