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.
No tuning has been demonstrated.But since a tuning is present-then it is logical to infer a tuner.
You find yourself looking for a tuner? Please note that the majority of mankind doesn't suffer from such blindness.No tuning has been demonstrated.
All we've been shown amounts to: it is what it is.
The idea that complex beings like us are a purpose, thats pure faith.
So we find ourselves looking for the tuner.
This is all very imprecise. Can you quantify your parameters, please?Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry- weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible- gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form- electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry- ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements- ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above- ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above- expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed- entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form- mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements- velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support- age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed- initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space- average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit- density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material- average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life- fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun- decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life- 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life- ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above- decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry- ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes- initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation- polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result- supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form- white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry- ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form- number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result- number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result- mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense- big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form- size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result- uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable- cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
I'm sorry, but what most people do isnt compelling.You find yourself looking for a tuner? Please note that the majority of mankind doesn't suffer from such blindness....
It has to be faith either way. Science can neither confirm nor deny the presence of purpose in natural phenomena.BTW
Actually, blind faith is what YOU are using to believe in purposeless abiogenesis. You haven't seen it happen in nature.
His proposition is phrased wrong.It has to be faith either way. Science can neither confirm nor deny the presence of purpose in natural phenomena.
It is apparently Radrook's position that a naturalistic abiogenesis must of necessity be purposeless.His proposition is phrased wrong.
I do not believe in purposeless abiogenesis. Its merely a provisional best guess awaiting confirmation or falsification. There's simply no evidence either way to justify something as strong as as belief.
How is that "faith"?
Seems to me that if a creator could make-life, he could certainly make-things-that-could-make-life.It is apparently Radrook's position that a naturalistic abiogenesis must of necessity be purposeless.
Seems to me that if a creator could make-life, he could certainly make-things-that-could-make-life.
His power isn't what is being questioned. It is his involvement.Seems to me that if a creator could make-life, he could certainly make-things-that-could-make-life.
I didn't say that it should be compelling. I merely said that they don't share a blindness which you feel should come as a natural reaction to an observation of nature.I'm sorry, but what most people do isnt compelling.
Thats not how I decide what makes sense.
I don't share your definition of faith. Neither does the Bible.His proposition is phrased wrong.
I do not believe in purposeless abiogenesis. Its merely a provisional best guess awaiting confirmation or falsification. There's simply no evidence either way to justify something as strong as as belief.
How is that "faith"?
Could if there were evidence for it.It has to be faith either way. Science can neither confirm nor deny the presence of purpose in natural phenomena.
His power isn't what is being questioned. It is his involvement.
I know I asked this before, but now that we have these parameters before us^^^, why is it surprising our universe have its values for those parameters rather than any particular other set???Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
Taken from Big Bang Refined by Fire by Dr. Hugh Ross, 1998. Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry- weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible- gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form- electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry- ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements- ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above- ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above- expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed- entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form- mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements- velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support- age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed- initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space- average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit- density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material- average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life- fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun- decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life- 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life- ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above- decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry- ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes- initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation- polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result- supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form- white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry- ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form- number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result- number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result- mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense- big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form- size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result- uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable- cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
His power isn't what is being questioned. It is his involvement.
Because those parameters are the ones which are necessary for life as we know it to exist and the probability of all of them converging is astronomically slim. That is an agreed-upon evaluation unless you bring in hypothetical multiple universes as a factor in order to evade the issue.I know I asked this before, but now that we have these parameters before us^^^, why is it surprising our universe have its values for those parameters rather than any particular other set???
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?