durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,360
- 19,072
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
You mean the observation that we are in a universe well suited to us?
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.
You mean the observation that we are in a universe well suited to us?In what way are the observation and the conclusion different? The observation is the conclusion.
I think you're reading too much intensity into this 'horror'. The homogeneity of space is a reasonable assumption -- that if you do an experiment in Botswana, you will get the same answer if you do it in Belize. Or on Betelgeuse, or anywhere else in the universe. A naive look at the redshift data seemed to show that we were in a special location where everything was moving away from us. And that other galaxies would see something quite different. This conflict between measurement and theory caused some unease... until a better theory was devised.
One wouldn't think so.
Observation =/= conclusionIn what way are the observation and the conclusion different? The observation is the conclusion.
Okay, well suited. You're trying to tone down the language to make it more palatable?You mean the observation that we are in a universe well suited to us?
'Unease' because of a measurement? Not buying it. He was horrified because it conflicted with his worldview.
He proposed the cosmological principle to save his worldview.
I suspected thats what you meant by fine tuning.Okay, well suited. You're trying to tone down the language to make it more palatable?Yes, like a man who sits down to a poker game and gets dealt royal flushes on a million hands in a row, you could say the game is well suited to him. A rational man would say the game is fixed.
No, as I explained, it conflicted with theory.
He changed the theory to fit the new facts. That's how science works.
I suspected thats what you meant by fine tuning.
Now you are back to assuming the conclusion.
Yeah, the language of the question contains the answer.I didn't go "back" to anything. You just substituted "suited" for "tuned". If tuned implies a Tuner, suited implies a Tailor. You can't get around it.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” -Charles Darwin
Funny how some facts are controversial while others aren't. The Earth is roughly 70% water, no problem. The universe is fine tuned for life, problem. It's only controversial to those who don't believe there's a God. They don't like the implications that come with the fine tuning. The only tactic left it to write it off as coincidence, even though common sense says otherwise. Another example of not liking the implications:
"Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature."
-Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology
I wonder if Hubble was horrified because he was an athesit or by some qualitative measurement of the redshift.
For example, the sun is roughly 400 times larger than the moon and roughly 400 times farther away. It may be significant but that fact alone could hardly it horrifying to anyone.
You guys are at odds with the greatest minds in science over the last 100 years. How does it feel to be the equivalent of a creationist, ha ha?
What's so funny? It's the guy smiling in his corner I bet on to loose the fight.
In what way are the observation and the conclusion different? The observation is the conclusion.
You can ask whatever you like, however you like, but no I don't think we need to rephrase it, it seems honest enough.Yeah, the language of the question contains the answer.
We should rephrase it if we're asking an honest question, dont you think?
More like: was the universe designed for human life?
Or: did human life arise according to strictly natural conditions of the universe?
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?