Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Herman Hedning]

So where are the other 29 universes that are "rigged for life" to make your analogy work?

The other 29 universes that have been tuned in exactly the same way as this one at that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The odds of you winning the lottery 30 times in a row is the same as 30 specific people winning the lottery. I have already shown you this.

The odds of John B winning the lottery is 1 in 150 million. The odds of Susan C winning the lottery after John B is 1 in 150 million to the 2nd power. The odds of John B, then Susan C, then Ralph P winning the lottery, in that order, is 150 million to the 3rd power. On it climbs. If you get to decide after 40 drawings that those were the planned and desired outcomes, then it is as fine tuned as our universe.

The lottery fallacy you are using is completely wrong. I know, I know it has been used in the past on Atheist sites but the problem is that it isn't accurate at all. Let me show you once and for all.

1. The lottery is not a chance occurrence. There is a set design to the game with the goal of someone winning. HINT: SOMEONE DESIGNED IT.
Not once has someone won millions of dollars by going into a place of business asking for a piece of paper, asking them to put some random numbers on it, and going home and waiting for them to post some random numbers on the wall and you by chance have those numbers and you go back in and claim you need millions of dollars because you have those numbers. It is a designed system...got that...someone rigged the system so someone can win! Lottery Fallacy refuted.

2 In the case above. I said and you ignored that it would be like "me" personally winning like 30 times. Getting really deep into it, it would be like me not only winning 30 times but some of those times would be like me having to win in different states simultaneously. If you don't think that everyone would think that I won by cheating somehow and would not think it rigged, you are in deep deep denial.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So where are the other 29 universes that are "rigged for life" to make your analogy work?

The 30 number is a number that represents the number of fine tuned constants (that we know about there could be more) that make us the lottery winning universe. We had to win those "lotteries" to win the grand daddy of them all "lottery". The lottery is a failed analogy anyway because it is a DESIGNED SYSTEM for a goal...winning the lottery. So it really better represents my position.

I'll repeat what I wrote to Loudmouth:

The lottery fallacy you are using is completely wrong. I know, I know it has been used in the past on Atheist sites but the problem is that it isn't accurate at all. Let me show you once and for all.

1. The lottery is not a chance occurrence. There is a set design to the game with the goal of someone winning. HINT: SOMEONE DESIGNED IT.
Not once has someone won millions of dollars by going into a place of business asking for a piece of paper, asking them to put some random numbers on it, and going home and waiting for them to post some random numbers on the wall and you by chance have those numbers and you go back in and claim you need millions of dollars because you have those numbers. It is a designed system...got that...someone rigged the system so someone can win! Lottery Fallacy refuted.

2 In the case above. I said and you ignored that it would be like "me" personally winning like 30 times. Getting really deep into it, it would be like me not only winning 30 times but some of those times would be like me having to win in different states simultaneously. If you don't think that everyone would think that I won by cheating somehow and would not think it rigged, you are in deep deep denial.

 

[JayFern]

Simple questions, what designed the universe, why was it done and when was it done? just saying it was designed is not enough, unless you can come up with the what, why and when you are just flapping your lips and causing a draught.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown any such thing.



A random tuning would also be fine tuned to that scale and that piano. You are ignoring the fact that a scale doesn't have to be a standard scale. A randomly tuned piano would produce sounds and chords unique to that piano, and the chords and scales it produces would be specific to the strings in that piano. It would be fine tuned if you get to decide afterwards what the scale is, which is exactly what you are doing with the universe. There is already life in the universe. You come along later and declare that life was the desired outcome from the start, but you have no evidence that this is the case.

You haven't made a proper analogy. You are claiming the after the fact scale but that is not the case. The tuning happened when the universe came into existence. WE do know that life is in this universe, we know what requirements were needed to do so, we know that there is no reason for those requirements in the laws of physics for those requirements to be met, we know that for life to exist it had to be that way from the start or no life. WE aren't coming in here later and claiming that it had to be from the start just because we are looking back. We know it had to be that way from the start or there would be no intelligent life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I fully agree that life could only exist in a narrow range of constants.

How does that evidence a fine tuner?

Is it more reasonable to assume that when the universe has this narrow life permitting range that had to happen some 30 times (that we know of) (think of them as dials and some of them had to be set simultaneously) in the very moments of the universe's life was due to some random chance event or that there was a fine tuner?

The fine tuned constants or values of the universe had to be set at the very earliest seconds of the Big Bang to allow this narrow range for life to exist. It has the appearance that it was a planned intent by an agent for the purpose of life. Is it I ask you more reasonable to think that this appearance of it being a planned intent by an agent for the purpose of life by chance like the lottery you like to use or is it more reasonable to think that it was in fact a planned intent by an agent for the purpose of life?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Simple questions, what designed the universe, why was it done and when was it done? just saying it was designed is not enough, unless you can come up with the what, why and when you are just flapping your lips and causing a draught.

Why? Why does the designer need to be identified? The why was for life, when was in the first seconds of the Big Bang and coming to the identity of that who is more reasonably answered in Biblical theology than most other who's. At least is is reasonable and cohesive within that theology.

 

[JayFern]

Why? Why does the designer need to be identified? The why was for life, when was in the first seconds of the Big Bang and coming to the identity of that who is more reasonably answered in Biblical theology than most other who's. At least is is reasonable and cohesive within that theology.

Would my ideas be just as valid if I told you what they were and like you provided nothing more than just words?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Would my ideas be just as valid if I told you what they were and like you provided nothing more than just words?

What would you like? What would you need more than the scientific evidence of fine tuning of the universe for life and the mind you are equipped with?

 

[JayFern]

What would you like? What would you need more than the scientific evidence of fine tuning of the universe for life and the mind you are equipped with?

"the scientific evidence of fine tuning of the universe for life"? you are kidding right? somehow I fear that you're not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"the scientific evidence of fine tuning of the universe for life"? you are kidding right? somehow I fear that you're not.

I am not kidding and neither are the majority of astrophysicists/physicists/cosmologists.

 

[EternalDragon]

"the scientific evidence of fine tuning of the universe for life"? you are kidding right? somehow I fear that you're not.

There are several factors that have to be within very tight parameters for life to exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are several factors that have to be within very tight parameters for life to exist.

Actually to be more precise, there are over 30 we know about that if they were even marginally different would eliminate not only the universe but life in it.

One important one I might add is that if there was the weight of one grain of sand difference either way the universe would have collapsed immediately.

 

[Loudmouth]

"fine-tuning" is a proposed answer to the question "why is the universe the way it is".

Part of the problem is that "fine tuning" has many meanings, and they are used interchangeably. As Oncedeceived is using it, it simply means that there is a narrow range of universes that life would appear . . . maybe. One example of fine tuning that has a known natural explanation is the Earth. The size, distance from the Sun, presence of water, and other values are all finely tuned, but we would expect to see such a planet appear in a universe with this many planets.

The first is an honest question. The second is a loaded question.

The term has been loaded from the beginning. As posters have shown, as soon as they use the term "fine tuning" they pretend it is the same as using "fine tuner". Oncedeceived plays this game all of the time, trying to declare that scientists support her beliefs that there is a designer because they describe the universe as fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually to be more precise, there are over 30 we know about that if they were even marginally different would eliminate not only the universe but life in it.

As has already been shown, they can differ by 20% and still be conducive to life. Also, your claim assumes that all other constants stay the same while one changes. If one value moves out of a certain range it can be compensated for by another constant moving out of another range.

One important one I might add is that if there was the weight of one grain of sand difference either way the universe would have collapsed immediately.

Reference?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are several factors that have to be within very tight parameters for life to exist.

And?

 

[Loudmouth]

You haven't made a proper analogy. You are claiming the after the fact scale but that is not the case.

Yes, it is. You are observing a universe after it has appeared, and then claiming that the observed universe was intended all along. The analogy is dead on.

The tuning happened when the universe came into existence. WE do know that life is in this universe, we know what requirements were needed to do so, we know that there is no reason for those requirements in the laws of physics for those requirements to be met, we know that for life to exist it had to be that way from the start or no life.

That would be true for every single universe. When you observe a universe after it is made, the unique features of that universe are necessarily the product of it's constants.

WE aren't coming in here later and claiming that it had to be from the start just because we are looking back.

You are coming in 13.8 billion years later and looking back.

We know it had to be that way from the start or there would be no intelligent life.

Just the same for the piano analogy. The scales of a randomly tuned piano are that way because of the random tuning, and they rely on that tuning. If I declare that the observed scale was the intended scale, as you have done, then the piano is fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. The lottery is not a chance occurrence. There is a set design to the game with the goal of someone winning. HINT: SOMEONE DESIGNED IT.

That does nothing to refute the argument. It is just an example of a random process.

2 In the case above. I said and you ignored that it would be like "me" personally winning like 30 times.

I didn't ignore it. I demonstrated that 30 specific people winning the lottery is exactly the same probability of you winning 30 times in a row. Didn't you read it?

 

[HitchSlap]

I go to sleep, and over ten pages later, still no evidence for a foxy, I mean fine, tuner?

I wonder when our resident Don Quixote's will admit their giants are only windmills?

In the mean time, here's a great TED talk from Dr. Greene.

Brian Greene: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life? - YouTube

 

[Oncedeceived]

As has already been shown, they can differ by 20% and still be conducive to life. Also, your claim assumes that all other constants stay the same while one changes. If one value moves out of a certain range it can be compensated for by another constant moving out of another range.

You take one example and apply them to all. That is dishonest.

Reference?

the Planck time, when the universe was 10^-43 seconds old. If the density of matter at the Planck time had differed from the critical density by as little as one part in 10^60, the universe would have either exploded so rapidly that galaxies wouldn’t have formed, or collapsed so quickly that life would never have appeared. In practical terms: if our universe, which contains 10^80 protons and neutrons, had even one more grain of sand in it – or one grain less – we wouldn’t be here. Fine-tuning expert Dr. Robin Collins elucidates these points in an article entitled, The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe (in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland. Copyright 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. ISBN: 978-1-405-17657-6). On page 215 he writes:

” There is … a fine-tuning of gravity … relative to the density of mass-energy in the early universe and other factors determining the expansion rate of the Big Bang – such as the value of the Hubble constant and the value of the cosmological constant. Holding these other parameters constant, if the strength of gravity were smaller or larger by an estimated one part in 10^60 of its current value, the universe would have either exploded too quickly for galaxies and stars to form, or collapsed back on itself too quickly for life to evolve.”[10]
​

In the footnote, Collins clarifies the connection between the fine-tuning of gravity and the density of matter in the cosmos:

Footnote 10. This latter fine-tuning of the strength of gravity is typically expressed as the claim that the density of matter at the Planck time (the time at which we have any confidence in the theory of Big Bang dynamics) must have been tuned to one part in 10^60 of the so-called critical density (e.g. Davies 1982, p. 89). Since the critical density is inversely proportional to the strength of gravity (Davies 1982, p. 88, eqn. 4.15), the fine-tuning of the matter density can easily be shown to be equivalent to the aforementioned claim about the tuning of the strength of gravity. (Bold emphases mine – VJT.)



This equation is based on the fact that since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.


Here are more:


The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.




​