As level and plumb as the job calls for.
Are humans more finely tuned than a shed? I'd argue yes.the universe that gave rise to humans must be more finely tuned, and God is thus even more finely tuned.
Upvote
0
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.
As level and plumb as the job calls for.Just how plumb and how level can you get something?
Ok. What scientists don't?
And God was fine tuned to desire the universe to exist as it is with this for of life in it.
Once is claiming that laws cannot exist apart from the objects they describe. However, since the mathematical laws and constants that describe circles can exist apart from circles, there is no reason to assume the natural laws somehow don't work this same way.What exactly might that mean? Circles are a mathematical abstraction, and they exist because we say they do. In any case, pi can be defined in more than one way. It could, for example, be defined as -i * log(-1).
Right, bUT I thing we can agree that the shell is created according to the laws, not that the laws spring from the shells. That's what Once seems to be saying, that the natural laws are created by the things they describe.Pi or the golden ratio has to do with a nautilus shell in the ocean that has to deal with the motion of the waves caused by gravity of the earth and the gravity of the moon. The shape and the thickness are both important for survival. This is why we end up with fibonacci numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, etc. So Pi or Fibonacci numbers apply to the sea shell, the weather patterns (tornado) and the photos we get from the Hubble of Spirals Galaxies in our Universe. The same math for a sea shell or a whole Galaxy because of what we call the Law of Gravity.
The Golden Rectangle, and the relation between the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio.
A Golden Rectangle is a rectangle in which the ratio of the length to the width is the Golden Ratio
1+1=2 / 1+2=3 / 2+3=5 / 3+5=8 / 5+8=13 / 8+13=21 / 13+21=34 / 21+34=55 / 34+55=89
The exact same precision you have in the beginning is maintained to the end. This is an example of fine tuning.
But that fine tuning only gets us to a universe where rocks can exist. God must be even more fine tuned to want not only rocks, but life, not only life, but intelligent life, and not only that, but life as we know it.Ho hum. The "If the universe wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here," argument. Unfortunately it misses the point. There is only a very narrow range of parameters which allows the universe to a.) exist in the first place, and b.) for that universe, if it does exist, to support any kind of chemistry.
Without chemistry, not only can life not exist in any shape or form, but b- all else can either.
That doesn't even make sense.And God was fine tuned to desire the universe to exist as it is with this for of life in it.
The reason they believe it is that is what the evidence shows.It's your claim. You show that "most" physicists believe the universe came from nothing.
Then, maybe you can explain why that is important, anyway, since what they believe has little to do with what we "know."
Are you not an intelligent life form? I mean if you don't I guess I can't refute it.I should have known better, I am the fool not you.
The reason they believe it is that is what the evidence shows.
You made a counter claim. Show those who don't believe that the evidence shows that the universe came from nothing, even if there was a singularity, it couldn't have been around any length of time because time didn't exist.
What evidence? We have no evidence, whatsoever, that there ever was a state of "nothing." Please show me this evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper. It is abundantly clear that scientists DON'T KNOW what happened before planck time=1.
Oi. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Hitchens
It's your burden, not mine.
Did you miss the link of Paul Davies? And:What evidence? We have no evidence, whatsoever, that there ever was a state of "nothing." Please show me this evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper. It is abundantly clear that scientists DON'T KNOW what happened before planck time=1.
Oi. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Hitchens
It's your burden, not mine.
Did you miss the link of Paul Davies?
And:
But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point
I said what scientists believe, not what they know and what they believe comes from what they know. Does that make sense? So in that way they believe something from what the evidence is telling them.What evidence? We have no evidence, whatsoever, that there ever was a state of "nothing." Please show me this evidence in the form of a peer reviewed paper. It is abundantly clear that scientists DON'T KNOW what happened before planck time=1.
Oi. "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." --Hitchens
It's your burden, not mine.
It's the same idea as the fine tuned universe.That doesn't even make sense.
I didn't say that there were peer reviewed papers or that scientists had evidence that the Big Bang "popped out of nothing". I said that most physicists believe so. The point is that our universe did not have space, matter, energy or time until it did. Which was my point from the beginning which is confirmed by everything I've provided.I said evidence, not the opinion of a certain scientist.
I also asked for peer reviewed papers.
And you still haven't shown that "most" physicists think the BB popped out of nothing.
Do yourself a favor, and google the "planck epoch". Find out just what we "know" about what happened before planck time=1.
I think you best stick to discussing my argument and leave the personal attacks out of the mix. Thanks.I think you are a fraud.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?