Fine Tuning

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then please, for a no-nothing like me, please explain to me in less than 200 words, 'the origin of the universe'.

Included in this explanation:
1) affidavits of people who witnessed the origin.
2) if no people can be found that can verify how the origin came about, then produce the scientific organization that used the scientific method and successfully tested, and verified, and replicated the origin.
3) explain to me how the scientific finely tuned constants came into existence, which should be easy, knowing that the origin has been duplicated.

I look forward to your knowledge and experience to increase my understanding of the orignation of the universe. It should be interesting.

Your problem is not merely that you're ignorant of the scientific literature on this topic. Your problem is you don't even know what the topic is. I have yet to see you correctly identify a single concept pertinent to the subject you're attempting to critique.

We already went through this earlier in this same thread. The only difference is that now you're expressing your complete ignorance of cosmology, instead of biology. Nothing substantial is different, so I'll just say the same thing I said last time,

Put down the creationist propaganda for a few hours, learn what a̶b̶i̶o̶g̶e̶n̶e̶s̶i̶s̶ Big Bang cosmology is and read what scientists from relevant fields of study have written on the subject.

Then maybe you can come back with something resembling an informed critique, instead of what you're doing right now - riding into battle on your broomstick horse with a wooden sword and your pants around your ankles, charging in the opposite direction from where the battle actually is.

It's 2017. You're on the internet. There are free, popular-level educational resources literally at your fingertips. You are without excuse. Read. Learn. Construct an informed opinion.

Or keep making an example of yourself.

 

[Peter1000]

Your problem is not merely that you're ignorant of the scientific literature on this topic. Your problem is you don't even know what the topic is. I have yet to see you correctly identify a single concept pertinent to the subject you're attempting to critique.

We already went through this earlier in this same thread. The only difference is that now you're expressing your complete ignorance of cosmology, instead of biology. Nothing substantial is different, so I'll just say the same thing I said last time,



It's 2017. You're on the internet. There are free, popular-level educational resources literally at your fingertips. You are without excuse. Read. Learn. Construct an informed opinion.

Or keep making an example of yourself.

Ok, in our earlier posts, you mentioned the 'big bang theory'. I have researched it before, but it was a long time ago, so I will research it again and ask you some questions about it.

So look forward to the discussion. Oh, you might want to go brush up on the 'big bang theory' yourself.

 

[Peter1000]

Your problem is not merely that you're ignorant of the scientific literature on this topic. Your problem is you don't even know what the topic is. I have yet to see you correctly identify a single concept pertinent to the subject you're attempting to critique.

We already went through this earlier in this same thread. The only difference is that now you're expressing your complete ignorance of cosmology, instead of biology. Nothing substantial is different, so I'll just say the same thing I said last time,



It's 2017. You're on the internet. There are free, popular-level educational resources literally at your fingertips. You are without excuse. Read. Learn. Construct an informed opinion.

Or keep making an example of yourself.

Let's get started.
I'm reading from this source:
Big Bang - Wikipedia

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion.

If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang.

So my first question is: How large was this singularity?

My second question is: Just exactly what was contained in this singularity?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So my first question is: How large was this singularity?

My second question is: Just exactly what was contained in this singularity?

It's still not my job to educate you. These are both questions you can very easily learn about on your own by consulting what scientists in relevant fields have written on the subject.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then please, for a no-nothing like me, please explain to me in less than 200 words, 'the origin of the universe'.

Included in this explanation:
1) affidavits of people who witnessed the origin.
2) if no people can be found that can verify how the origin came about, then produce the scientific organization that used the scientific method and successfully tested, and verified, and replicated the origin.
3) explain to me how the scientific finely tuned constants came into existence, which should be easy, knowing that the origin has been duplicated.

I look forward to your knowledge and experience to increase my understanding of the orignation of the universe. It should be interesting.

The origins of the universe are unknown.


You may present your argument from ignorance know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that you and I have had most of the conversation about the fine tuned constants.

I can't remember ever imparting any information that would make you think that if you do not believe in the divine nature of the constants, that you will go to hell.

You didn't, nore did I mean to imply that you did.

What I did mean by it, is that this entire argument on your side of the table does not rest upon evidence. It rests upon religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are saying that because God cannot be tested or is unfalsifiable, then you can throw Him out of your origin-of-the-universe equation. Fair enough.

No. Rather, because it is untestable or unfalsifiable, there is no justifiable reason to throw it "in".

I can literally make up a near-infinite number of untestable and unfalsifiable models of reality (not just of origins), only limited by the limits of my imagination.

Such models are completely useless and meaningless.

But if you are throwing Him out for that reason, you are compelled to throw out the so called scientific stuff that cannot be tested or unfalsified.

Things that untestable or unfalsifiable, are unscientific by definition.

So in the spirit of fairness, the concepts of the origin of the universe, both sacred and secular, should be thrown out. Not testable, not falsifiable.

What concepts? There are none. The origins of the universe are unknown today.
Some scientists have some ideas. There are a few hypothesis out there that perhaps are worth investigating. But for all practical intents and purposes, the origins of the universe are unknown.

I never said or claimed otherwise.

If that is your mantra, then stick by it.

I do stick by it. I have no problem acknowledging ignorance where ignorance reigns. I don't feel a need to just make something up instead.

You don't get to choose when you play that card.

Indeed, I don't. Neither do I do so.

Just remember this, the version of Christianity you grew up with is not real and God is much different than you can imagine.

I had a secular upbringing and grew up with no religious influence whatsoever.
The first time I came in direct contact with it, was when I transfered to a catholic school at the age of 16. Read the bible at 17. The quran at 18.

I was like "...uhu... and people believe this...why exactly?" after both reads.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, in our earlier posts, you mentioned the 'big bang theory'. I have researched it before, but it was a long time ago, so I will research it again and ask you some questions about it.

So look forward to the discussion. Oh, you might want to go brush up on the 'big bang theory' yourself.

FYI: big bang theory, contrary to popular belief, is NOT a theory of origins of the universe. It rather is a theory of development of an already existing universe. It explains the expansion of space-time.

It starts with some kind of singularity. It doesn't explain where that singularity came from. Big Bang Theory starts with the singularity already existing. Neither does it explain what "triggered" this expansion.

 

[anonymous person]

The origins of the universe are unknown.


You may present your argument from ignorance know.

What you mean to say is that scientists have not discovered using science, what the origin of the universe is. This is true and we all agree.

But why think this question can even be answered by science?

Do you not have to assmue some sort of naturalism to reach that conclusion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you mean to say is that scientists have not discovered using science, what the origin of the universe is.

Neither did anyone else by any other means.

But why think this question can even be answered by science?

I don't think I suggested that science is able to answer the question.
I'm well aware, actually, that the origins of the universe might turn out to be one of those puzzles we might never fully succeed in solving.

However, it seems pretty obvious to me that IF the question is answerable at all, science is probably the best candidate to do so.

If one day the answer is found, I bet it will be provided to us by science. Not by a priest.

Do you not have to assmue some sort of naturalism to reach that conclusion?

No.

 

[anonymous person]

Neither did anyone else by any other means.



I don't think I suggested that science is able to answer the question.
I'm well aware, actually, that the origins of the universe might turn out to be one of those puzzles we might never fully succeed in solving.

However, it seems pretty obvious to me that IF the question is answerable at all, science is probably the best candidate to do so.

If one day the answer is found, I bet it will be provided to us by science. Not by a priest.



No.

Consider the problem:

Scientists have proven that the universe as we know it, has not always been the way it is now, but that space itself is expanding and that if we were to rewind the tape of the history of the universe we would see it literally shrink down to nothing. The Standard Model predicts this and though scientists who hate the idea of this have tried time and time again to disprove it, the model has proved its mettle time and time again and still stands.

You're aware of this correct?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Scientists have proven that the universe as we know it, has not always been the way it is now, but that space itself is expanding and that if we were to rewind the tape of the history of the universe we would see it literally shrink down to nothing.

Nope. Scientists have proven no such thing.

The Standard Model predicts this and though scientists who hate the idea of this have tried time and time again to disprove it, the model has proved its mettle time and time again and still stands.

Nope. The standard model predicts no such thing.

Your caricature of scientists as steadfast idealogues is also false. You're thinking of creationists.

You're aware of this correct?

I'd say you should put down the creationist propaganda for a few hours and study what actual scientists in relevant fields have written about the subject.

 

[Peter1000]

It's still not my job to educate you. These are both questions you can very easily learn about on your own by consulting what scientists in relevant fields have written on the subject.

You are nothing but a blowhard. You say a lot of things, but back up nothing. Did you even know what I meant by the term 'singularity'?

You are very aware that the questions I asked are untestable, and unfalsifiable and therefore should not even be in the scope of science.

It is just like you think of God. He is untestable and unfalsifiable, therefore He does not fall within the scope of science.

Besides, I'm not interested in what other scientists say about the subject, I want to know what you have to say about the subject. But you have answered my question, you know nothing. So, thanks for nothing. You have really added a lot to this conversation.

You may respond to this post if you wish, and you can even have the last word, but I will not respond to you again, and I'm sure you are OK with that too.

Just know that I have won the discussion, I have put forth my arguments and you have put forth nothing but ridicule. So a Superior Being is as worthy to study as is the big bang cosmology. Why not study something that is real.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You are nothing but a blowhard. You say a lot of things, but back up nothing.

You've spent this entire thread attempting to criticize subjects you have blatantly never studied. You don't get to call other people 'blowhards'.

Did you even know what I meant by the term 'singularity'?

Yes. What's more, I know what scientists in relevant fields have written about the concept. Just because you learned the term a few days ago doesn't mean the rest of us did.

You are very aware that the questions I asked are untestable, and unfalsifiable and therefore should not even be in the scope of science.

It is just like you think of God. He is untestable and unfalsifiable, therefore He does not fall within the scope of science.

You're projecting. Science does not make epistemologically vacuous naked assertions. That's creationism.

Besides, I'm not interested in what other scientists say about the subject

If you're not interested in studying what experts in relevant fields have to say about the subject, you're not interested in being taken seriously.

I am always happy to offer my own layman's perspective on these things, but only with people who are capable of having a discussion by demonstrating some understanding of the subject. Until then, it's a not a 'discussion' at all. It's me educating you. Which I have zero interest in doing.

Just know that I have won the discussion

What 'discussion'? You spent page after page of comments with barely a clue what the discussion even is. You didn't 'win' anything, except maybe a chance to make an example of yourself. So on behalf of the people reading along, thanks for doing that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Consider the problem:

Scientists have proven that the universe as we know it, has not always been the way it is now, but that space itself is expanding and that if we were to rewind the tape of the history of the universe we would see it literally shrink down to nothing.

Not nothing. Science is kind of stuck at planck time. The universe exists, in some form, at planck time. So no, not "nothing".

 

[Peter1000]

Neither did anyone else by any other means.



I don't think I suggested that science is able to answer the question.
I'm well aware, actually, that the origins of the universe might turn out to be one of those puzzles we might never fully succeed in solving.

However, it seems pretty obvious to me that IF the question is answerable at all, science is probably the best candidate to do so.

If one day the answer is found, I bet it will be provided to us by science. Not by a priest.



No.

I would not suggest a priest will inform us of the origin of the universe.

Joseph Smith says that he saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. I believe that this is true.

When JS came out of that grove of trees, and after only a few moments with the Godhead, he was able to tell the world more about the real nature of the Trinity than all the books that have been ever been written since the beginning of the world. Thousands of books and millions of hours of research by their authors, was instantly trumped by a 14 year old boy that wanted his sins removed and wanted to know which of the Christian churches he should join.

From that interview, he learned, by sight and oral conversation what the The Godhead was really made of and how They operate. No research, no guessing, no discussion with the doctors of religion, but a few precious minutes with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and the HS.

It will be the same, when the Superior Being wants us to know how He started the universe, He will tell it to His prophet on the earth and the prophet will relay that information to men.

Because it is not necessary to know the origin of the universe in order to be saved in His Kingdom, I doubt this knowledge will be given before the resurrection. It will only be given to those that are saved and exalted in His Kingdom and become like Him in all ways and only those will receive the knowledge of creation.

The rest will never know how the universe was started. Over billions of years and being an amateur scientist, you may have an occasion to gnash your teeth and curse God for not knowing the answer to the riddle.

Move to my side and some day you will have the answer. With that answer to fine tune the constants, you will have the power to create your own universe.

Gnash your teeth, or unlimited creation, which do you want?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Joseph Smith says that he saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. I believe that this is true.

Why do you believe that that is true?

When JS came out of that grove of trees, and after only a few moments with the Godhead, he was able to tell the world more about the real nature of the Trinity than all the books that have been ever been written since the beginning of the world. Thousands of books and millions of hours of research by their authors, was instantly trumped by a 14 year old boy that wanted his sins removed and wanted to know which of the Christian churches he should join.

It seems that the vast majority of christians do not agree with that, at all.

From that interview, he learned, by sight and oral conversation what the The Godhead was really made of and how They operate. No research, no guessing, no discussion with the doctors of religion, but a few precious minutes with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and the HS.

It will be the same, when the Superior Being wants us to know how He started the universe, He will tell it to His prophet on the earth and the prophet will relay that information to men.

And it will be indistinguishable from any other creation myth.

Because it is not necessary to know the origin of the universe in order to be saved in His Kingdom, I doubt this knowledge will be given before the resurrection. It will only be given to those that are saved and exalted in His Kingdom and become like Him in all ways and only those will receive the knowledge of creation.

The rest will never know how the universe was started. Over billions of years and being an amateur scientist, you may have an occasion to gnash your teeth and curse God for not knowing the answer to the riddle.

Move to my side and some day you will have the answer. With that answer to fine tune the constants, you will have the power to create your own universe.

Gnash your teeth, or unlimited creation, which do you want?

These are the kinds of intellectually lazy positions that halt progress.

 

[Peter1000]

Why do you believe that that is true?

Because this confirms what other people have said since the world began. So I believe it.

It seems that the vast majority of christians do not agree with that, at all.

Mormons believe in continuous revelation and so it is unimportant to us what other Christians believe. In fact is it the things that some Christians believe in the nature of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and the HS that has driven millions to not even believe in God any more. We know the nature of God because God has showed Himself to our prophets and apostles from 1820 to the present.
We do not rely of speculation, debate, doctoral guesses etc. We rely on direct revelation, directly from the source.

And it will be indistinguishable from any other creation myth.

Creation is obviously not a myth, since we are obviously here. Does that sound familiar? I always hear from atheists that only have 'chance' to depend on, tell me that obviously that 1 in a trillion trillion trillion chances happened because we are here. Well some silly creation stories are mythical, but one of them is true, and explains the fine tuned constants nicely.

Our conversation is about the origin of the universe. The bible creation story is primarily about the earth and the heavens around the earth, not the origin of the universe. That is information that is unknown to Christians, or scientists, or Creationists, or Atheists.

These are the kinds of intellectually lazy positions that halt progress.

You can intellect all over the place, all you want, but JS learned first hand. No intellectual, mind-bending theories to try to explain. Just a simple conversation of pure truth. They did not talk about the origin of the universe. That is still unknown.

 

[Peter1000]

Not nothing. Science is kind of stuck at planck time. The universe exists, in some form, at planck time. So no, not "nothing".

I agree with you about 'nothing', but this 'big bang' timeline is sure full of guesses. From the Planck Epoch to the Nucleosynthesis Epoch, the universe cooled from about a trillion degrees to a billion degrees and all in about 20 minutes so guess the scientists. Wow, what a ride. Lets test and unfalsify that theory.

Can you explain to me how a miniscule singularity can hold all the material in a fully expanded universe, as we see today?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with you about 'nothing', but this 'big bang' timeline is sure full of guesses.

How so?

From the Planck Epoch to the Nucleosynthesis Epoch, the universe cooled from about a trillion degrees to a billion degrees and all in about 20 minutes so guess the scientists. Wow, what a ride. Lets test and unfalsify that theory.

"unfalsify"?

Big Bang theory makes quite a few testable predictions. The most famous one probably being background radiation, which when measured, matches the predictions quite exactly apparantly.

Sure, Big Bang cosmology is not really of the same category of accurateness or testability as for example Evolution theory (but then again, what theory is that well supported...).

In fact, if I understand correctly, there are bound to be "mistakes" or "missing things" in it, considering the idea that physics of the small don't really play nicely with the physics of the big... There is no "unified field theory" yet in Physics. So most likely such a theory might turn a few things on their head.

Nevertheless though, as it stands, Big Bang theory is the best explanation currently at our disposal.

Can you explain to me how a miniscule singularity can hold all the material in a fully expanded universe, as we see today?

Probably in the same way that a black hole is capable of holding all the mass of a few million suns.

Also, I'ld like to point out that such "extremes" of physics are bound to be way beyond our every-day experience and that our brains, which evolved to avoid being eaten by lions, most likely aren't capable of comprehending such things.

And that includes the brains of theoretical physicists. We know the experiments work. We know the math works. We know it powers our computers and other hi-tech devices... But I don't think a single physicists will tell you that quantum mechanics is "logical" or particularly "comprehendible".

We can wrap our heads around objects of medium mass that travel at sub-light speeds.
But once we cross that line of mass which makes the difference between a shiny star or a black hole, or when the speed of the object approaches lightspeed.... All our "intuitive" comprehension kind of goes out the window.

As Krauss so famously said:
Our brains evolved to avoid being eaten by dangerous predators... not to comprehend quantum mechanics