Fine Tuning

[TagliatelliMonster]

Given the incredible fine tuned constants and the goldilocks solar system and earth we live in, it is the only rational position to take.

We have only explored a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the stars surrounding us, and allready we have found plenty of planets that orbit in the goldilock zone. It really isn't rare, nore does it require any special explanation.

A planet is going to orbit its star at some distance.
Considering that there are, on average, about 150 billion stars in a galaxy and that there are about 150 billion such galaxies.... it's pretty safe to say that plenty of those stars will have planets orbitting them at that distance.

And ignorance about why the constants are what they are, is not an argument for or against anything.

 

[Peter1000]

We have only explored a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the stars surrounding us, and allready we have found plenty of planets that orbit in the goldilock zone. It really isn't rare, nore does it require any special explanation.

A planet is going to orbit its star at some distance.
Considering that there are, on average, about 150 billion stars in a galaxy and that there are about 150 billion such galaxies.... it's pretty safe to say that plenty of those stars will have planets orbitting them at that distance.

You are right, and there are a few planets that we have found that are in a goldilock zone around their sun. But there are many factors that go into making an earth-like planet other than being in a goldilock zone, I'm sure you are aware of that.

In fact it is rare enough that an exact duplicate of earth has not been found yet, or am I behind on my reading?

What we can be pretty safe to say is: of the billions of galaxies and billions of suns in those galaxies we know that there will be other earth-like planets that a Superior Being will be involved in setting up to be just like our earth.

And ignorance about why the constants are what they are, is not an argument for or against anything.

Ignorance is not an argument. I'm not using that argument, you are. You are the one that is saying,
I don't know, other words for I'm ignorant (not rude, just lacking knowledge).

The constants are so finely tuned that they could not have come into existence by chance. The only alternative is: they were designed in a special way to allow for life. Any small varience, larger or smaller would cause no life, so there had to be a Superior Being that planned and carried out the design of the constants. The constants are my argument.

Again, give me another alternative to think about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are right, and there are a few planets that we have found that are in a goldilock zone around their sun. But there are many factors that go into making an earth-like planet other than being in a goldilock zone, I'm sure you are aware of that.

Actually, several of the ones we found, as said, after looking at a fraction of a fraction of a fraction...(this goes on for quite a while)... of a fraction of stars out there, are earth like in materials.

Most of them also orbit sun-like stars.

Again, it really isn't that special.

In fact it is rare enough that an exact duplicate of earth has not been found yet, or am I behind on my reading?

Why would you need an EXACT duplicate of earth?
Earth, btw, has changed quite a bit over the eons. Most of things a live today would not survive in the atmosphere of the first few billion years.

What we can be pretty safe to say is: of the billions of galaxies and billions of suns in those galaxies we know that there will be other earth-like planets that a Superior Being will be involved in setting up to be just like our earth.

"my argument works, even when it doesn't!"

Ignorance is not an argument. I'm not using that argument, you are. You are the one that is saying, I don't know, other words for I'm ignorant (not rude, just lacking knowledge).

O, wauw.

What I'm saying is "We don't know, so let's get to work and try and find out"
What you are saying is "We don't know, so therefor god".

The constants are so finely tuned that they could not have come into existence by chance.

You don't know that. You just believe that.

The only alternative is: they were designed in a special way to allow for life.

No. The only proper answer is that we don't know why the values are what they are and we need more knowledge before we can make any kind of claim about it.

Again, you'ld need to know and understand the process of how a universe comes into existance, in order to know and understand why the values are what they are.

We don't know why they are what they are.
When you don't know, they only rational thing to do is acknowledge that ignorance and not just invent something.

Any small varience, larger or smaller would cause no life, so there had to be a Superior Being that planned and carried out the design of the constants.

First, that's not exactly correct.
Second, it doesn't matter, because we don't even know if these values even could have been different.

The constants are my argument.

That makes no sense to me.
An argument does not consist of mere data.

Again, give me another alternative to think about.

It is unknown. And your claim is a fallacious argument from ignorance / incredulity.

 

[anonymous person]

Simple, really: "if things were different, then things would be different and we wouldn't be here wondering about it".

Just because we happen to be here, doesn't imply or mean that we were meant to be here.

No doubt.

Seems like a tautology to me though.

It is like saying that since the car in my driveway starts right up when I turn the key and gets me from point A to point B, that therefore I should not be surprised that it does so.

That does not explain who designed the car or why it was designed in the first place.

And does not the one who appeals to the Anthropic Principle need to furnish evidence for the metaphysical hypothesis of a World Ensemble to which the A.P must be conjoined in order to nullify our wonder at such fine tuning?

 

[Peter1000]

TagliatelliMonste:

"my argument works, even when it doesn't!"

Your thoughts and Mormon thoughts on other earths are the same. The reason for those other earths may be different, but what the heck we agree on something.

What I'm saying is "We don't know, so let's get to work and try and find out"

I agree with you, but one of the 2 or 3 best avenues of exploration we have is that a Superior Being designed it all.

Can you go there and do any exploration with me?

We don't know why they are what they are.
When you don't know, they only rational thing to do is acknowledge that ignorance and not just invent something.

Science invents things all the time, what do you think an hypothesis is? It is pretty much a guess, but because it comes from an educated man or woman they don't call it an invention, they call it a scientific hypothesis.

Hypothesis come and go with the wind. Like the multiverse guess. This invention came about as an argument that because there are billions and trillions of universes, one of them, surely, will by chance set the constants the way they are in our universe.

It is an argument for how the constants came about by random chance. It is not very well thought out.

That makes no sense to me.
An argument does not consist of mere data.

Well, that's interesting. Let's reduce the importance of the data if it has to do with a Superior Designer, is that your position.

What is more important in an argument than data? This data is so profound that you have to account for it and science can't account for it. Therefore if science does not have the answer, a thinking man would be willing to take a look at all the alternatives, especially if there was a reasonable hypothesis. The reasonable hypothesis in my case is: a Superior Being had the knowledge to set the constants in just the right array as to produce life. The data coming from the constants is like a giant neon finger pointing directly to the existence of a Superior Being.

I do agree that there is a part of the hypothesis that requires a certain amount of faith. Which I am willing to give. But in any scientific hypothesis about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on this earth there has to be a certain amount of faith necessary to continue the discussion.
So faith becomes an intricate part of the discussion of scientific discovery and also of the knowledge of God.

This Superior Being has declared that He has set these constants to create the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. He has been seen of men anciently, at the time of Christ, and in our modern era. He has not hid Himself.

It is unknown. And your claim is a fallacious argument from ignorance / incredulity.

My comment was show me another alternative that I can think about. This is your response. Seems a little out of line.
I ask for another alternative and you snap back that by claim is a fallacious argument from ignorance/incredulity.

In this comment, I was not claiming anything. I wanted to give you a chance to show me another option other than God. You obviously don't have one, so I will not ask again.

Which brings me back to my claim. Why not consider my position seriously, since science has provided nothing for you about the origin of the universe and life on earth.
The constants are begging you to take a look.[/QUOTE]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with you, but one of the 2 or 3 best avenues of exploration we have is that a Superior Being designed it all.

That would only be a valid path of exploration, if it can be tested / measured.
Which it isn't.

Can you go there and do any exploration with me?

No, because I can not explore that which is indistinguishable from non-existance.

Science invents things all the time, what do you think an hypothesis is?

A hypothesis is a testable model of explanation which is falsifiable.

How is your "superior designer model" testable and falsifiable?

It is pretty much a guess

It is not.

but because it comes from an educated man or woman they don't call it an invention, they call it a scientific hypothesis.

No. A proposed explanation / idea is called a scientific hypothesis not based on who comes up with it, but based on certain criteria the idea itself must meet.
For example, it needs to attempt to explain a well-defined set of facts within a certain scope, it needs to be testable and falsifiable.

Otherwise, you have nothing to investigate / to work with.

This data is so profound that you have to account for it and science can't account for it. Therefore if science does not have the answer, a thinking man would be willing to take a look at all the alternatives, especially if there was a reasonable hypothesis.

If there is no answer, then it is unknown. And right there, the conversation stops.

The reasonable hypothesis in my case is: a Superior Being had the knowledge to set the constants in just the right array as to produce life.

That's not a hypothesis, because it is not testable.

The data coming from the constants is like a giant neon finger pointing directly to the existence of a Superior Being.

Argument from ignorance.

I do agree that there is a part of the hypothesis that requires a certain amount of faith.

First, it's not a hypothesis. It's just a mere claim, nothing more nothing less. And it is entirely faith based.

But in any scientific hypothesis about the origin of the universe and the origin of life on this earth there has to be a certain amount of faith necessary to continue the discussion.

No. At least, not if you care about intellectual honesty.

So faith becomes an intricate part of the discussion of scientific discovery and also of the knowledge of God.

No. Faith is the anti-thesis of science.

My comment was show me another alternative that I can think about.

And as you made clear above, the only reason you gave as validation for this "alternative" was "science doesn't know". That's textbook argument from ignorance.

This is your response. Seems a little out of line.

No, it's bang on the money. Just because something isn't known, doesn't give you to justification to simply posit some undetectable, inexplicable "deity" as if that explains anything.

Before it was known what lightning was, people posited Zeus/Jupiter/Thor to explain it. Same thing.

I ask for another alternative and you snap back that by claim is a fallacious argument from ignorance/incredulity.

You didn't ask. You claimed.
And for the record: the alternative to ignorance is getting to work. Not just claiming a deity that you already happened to believe in (on faith, of all things).

In this comment, I was not claiming anything. I wanted to give you a chance to show me another option other than God. You obviously don't have one, so I will not ask again.

Your god isn't even an option in the first place.
You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.
Arguments from ignorance/incredulity aren't valid "options".

Why not consider my position seriously,

Because there is nothing there to consider "seriously".
There is only a fallacious argument from ignorance / incredulity.

since science has provided nothing for you about the origin of the universe and life on earth.

Yes, because it isn't known.
There was a time where science also hadn't explained lightning, the tides, electricity, germs,.... and that ignorance wasn't a good foundation for positing deities or demons either.

The constants are begging you to take a look.

The constants themselves do not tell you how they originated, or if they even could be any different.

 

[Peter1000]

That would only be a valid path of exploration, if it can be tested / measured.
Which it isn't.

Then nothing about the creation of the universe and nothing about the origin of life on this earth can be tested/measured or are falsifiable. Therefore where do we start our work?

A hypothesis is a testable model of explanation which is falsifiable.

Then there should be no hypothesis for the origin of the universe or the origin of life on this planet. The reason is as you say, no testable model of explanation and not falsibiable. IOW goodbye to a large % of scientific exploration.

No. A proposed explanation / idea is called a scientific hypothesis not based on who comes up with it, but based on certain criteria the idea itself must meet.
For example, it needs to attempt to explain a well-defined set of facts within a certain scope, it needs to be testable and falsifiable.

Stephen Hawking came out with his book about multiuniverses to combat the growing concern that all science had for the origin of the universe was random chance. So his hypothesis was that there are trillion upon trillions of universes and ours just happens to have constants that are what they are.

Well everybody claps and cheers and throw flowers at his feet, because he has come up with a theory about how the universe came about by random chance and they think he has knocked out God from the equation.

Well if you were honest you would have to tell the hero of the scientific world that his hypothesis is untestable, and unfalsifiable, therefore it is not a hypothesis at all, because it is indistinquishable from non-existence.

The point: if a hero scientist like Stephen Hawking says something, other lower sub-scientists crawl fast and furious to cover his back and argue vehemnently that what he says is pure science.

First, it's not a hypothesis. It's just a mere claim, nothing more nothing less. And it is entirely faith based.

So is Stephen Hawking's multiverse theory.
Do you think his theory is just a mere claim, nothing more, nothing less?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then nothing about the creation of the universe and nothing about the origin of life on this earth can be tested/measured or are falsifiable. Therefore where do we start our work?

You could start with going away and studying these things for a few hours, since you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[anonymous person]

You could start with going away and studying these things for a few hours, since you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.

?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then nothing about the creation of the universe and nothing about the origin of life on this earth can be tested/measured or are falsifiable.

When you make statements like this, it becomes exponentially harder to try and pretend to be taking you seriously....

Then there should be no hypothesis for the origin of the universe or the origin of life on this planet. The reason is as you say, no testable model of explanation and not falsibiable. IOW goodbye to a large % of scientific exploration.

So, because your god model happens to be constructed in such a way that it is untestable and unfalsifiable, science should be thrown out the window?

You sound like a kid who throws all vegeteables in de thrash, because he can't have chocolate cake for dinner.

Stephen Hawking came out with his book about multiuniverses to combat the growing concern that all science had for the origin of the universe was random chance. So his hypothesis was that there are trillion upon trillions of universes and ours just happens to have constants that are what they are.

Well everybody claps and cheers and throw flowers at his feet, because he has come up with a theory about how the universe came about by random chance and they think he has knocked out God from the equation.

Well if you were honest you would have to tell the hero of the scientific world that his hypothesis is untestable, and unfalsifiable, therefore it is not a hypothesis at all, because it is indistinquishable from non-existence.

The point: if a hero scientist like Stephen Hawking says something, other lower sub-scientists crawl fast and furious to cover his back and argue vehemnently that what he says is pure science.

Writing books is not the same as writing scientific papers.

Having said that, it's not really a hypothesis. It's more like a thought experiment.
No honest scientist would call it a valid hypothesis if he didn't have at least a remote idea on how it could be tested at least on principle.

And, perhaps more importantly in context of this conversation... Hawking isn't running around telling people they should accept this idea "or burn for eternity". Hawking isn't presenting this idea as if it is "the Truth and nothing but the Truth", capital "T".

Your comparision is ridiculous, in other words.

 

[anonymous person]

When you make statements like this, it becomes exponentially harder to try and pretend to be taking you seriously....



So, because your god model happens to be constructed in such a way that it is untestable and unfalsifiable, science should be thrown out the window?

You sound like a kid who throws all vegeteables in de thrash, because he can't have chocolate cake for dinner.




Writing books is not the same as writing scientific papers.

Having said that, it's not really a hypothesis. It's more like a thought experiment.
No honest scientist would call it a valid hypothesis if he didn't have at least a remote idea on how it could be tested at least on principle.

And, perhaps more importantly in context of this conversation... Hawking isn't running around telling people they should accept this idea "or burn for eternity". Hawking isn't presenting this idea as if it is "the Truth and nothing but the Truth", capital "T".

Your comparision is ridiculous, in other words.

It is interesting you would mention the doctrine of hell in a thread on the fine tuning of the universe.

In my discussions with people with something against Christianity, I have always found it to be the case that they have two types of objections. The intellectual, public objections, and the emotional, private objections. The first lie on the surface, the second lie close to the heart. If the first were dispensed with, the later would remain and is what is really the straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak.

If the road is long from atheism to theism, I dare say for some it is even longer from theism to Christianity for precisely the reason you alluded to, the doctrine of hell.

Tell me, what is it about the doctrine of hell that you find so objectionable that even if your intellectual misgivings were nullified, would still prevent you from repenting of your sins and living a life under the lordship of Christ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is interesting you would mention the doctrine of hell in a thread on the fine tuning of the universe.

That is indeed interesting. Probably not for the reason that you think it is, though.

In my discussions with people with something against Christianity, I have always found it to be the case that they have two types of objections. The intellectual, public objections, and the emotional, private objections. The first lie on the surface, the second lie close to the heart. If the first were dispensed with, the later would remain and is what is really the straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak.

I have objections against Christianity, yes. I have objections against all faith-based propositions - not just christianity.

But that is not the reason why I reject such arguments as in this thread. I reject such arguments because they are unscientific. Because they flow from faith-based beliefs.

And in that context, yes, it is very noteworthy to say that no biologist, for example, tells you that you need to accept evolution theory "or else...". Rather, they say, you should accept evolution theory because "here is the evidence".

With theistic ideas, such as the one in this thread, it is a very different story.

If the road is long from atheism to theism, I dare say for some it is even longer from theism to Christianity for precisely the reason you alluded to, the doctrine of hell.

Again, the reason for mentioning it has nothing to do with an aversion to christianity. I happen to be of that opinion (that "hell" is a ridiculous proposition and is rooted in very questionable ethics / morals), yes. But that is not the reason for rejecting such theistic arguments pretending to be scientific.

I mention it, for the reason mentioned above...
A justifiable reason for accepting an argument is supportive evidence.
But arguments such as the one in this thread, are not justified with evidence. They are "justified" with even more beliefs. One of which is "you should believe, or else..."

Tell me, what is it about the doctrine of hell that you find so objectionable that even if your intellectual misgivings were nullified, would still prevent you from repenting of your sins and living a life under the lordship of Christ?

I'll be more then happy to explain it, in a thread where that is the subject. If you really wish to have an open conversation about that, I suggest you create a thread for it in the ethics forum and poke me with it.

In this thread however, it is off topic.

 

[anonymous person]

That is indeed interesting. Probably not for the reason that you think it is, though.



I have objections against Christianity, yes. I have objections against all faith-based propositions - not just christianity.

But that is not the reason why I reject such arguments as in this thread. I reject such arguments because they are unscientific. Because they flow from faith-based beliefs.

And in that context, yes, it is very noteworthy to say that no biologist, for example, tells you that you need to accept evolution theory "or else...". Rather, they say, you should accept evolution theory because "here is the evidence".

With theistic ideas, such as the one in this thread, it is a very different story.



Again, the reason for mentioning it has nothing to do with an aversion to christianity. I happen to be of that opinion (that "hell" is a ridiculous proposition and is rooted in very questionable ethics / morals), yes. But that is not the reason for rejecting such theistic arguments pretending to be scientific.

I mention it, for the reason mentioned above...
A justifiable reason for accepting an argument is supportive evidence.
But arguments such as the one in this thread, are not justified with evidence. They are "justified" with even more beliefs. One of which is "you should believe, or else..."



I'll be more then happy to explain it, in a thread where that is the subject. If you really wish to have an open conversation about that, I suggest you create a thread for it in the ethics forum and poke me with it.

In this thread however, it is off topic.

The doctrine of hell

 

[anonymous person]

That is indeed interesting. Probably not for the reason that you think it is, though.



I have objections against Christianity, yes. I have objections against all faith-based propositions - not just christianity.

But that is not the reason why I reject such arguments as in this thread. I reject such arguments because they are unscientific. Because they flow from faith-based beliefs.

And in that context, yes, it is very noteworthy to say that no biologist, for example, tells you that you need to accept evolution theory "or else...". Rather, they say, you should accept evolution theory because "here is the evidence".

With theistic ideas, such as the one in this thread, it is a very different story.



Again, the reason for mentioning it has nothing to do with an aversion to christianity. I happen to be of that opinion (that "hell" is a ridiculous proposition and is rooted in very questionable ethics / morals), yes. But that is not the reason for rejecting such theistic arguments pretending to be scientific.

I mention it, for the reason mentioned above...
A justifiable reason for accepting an argument is supportive evidence.
But arguments such as the one in this thread, are not justified with evidence. They are "justified" with even more beliefs. One of which is "you should believe, or else..."



I'll be more then happy to explain it, in a thread where that is the subject. If you really wish to have an open conversation about that, I suggest you create a thread for it in the ethics forum and poke me with it.

In this thread however, it is off topic.

Who has said that you should believe that the fine tuning evidenced in nature is due to design or else you will go to hell?

Why in the world would you even create such a ridiculous strawman?

Are you joking or serious?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who has said that you should believe that the fine tuning evidenced in nature is due to design or else you will go to hell?

Why in the world would you even create such a ridiculous strawman?

Are you joking or serious?

I've explained myself already. I see no reason to do it again.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Most versions of hell that I know of are believed to be finely tuned so as to cause maximal suffering of its inhabitants. Therefore, it is not off topic... I guess. However, there is nothing to discuss on the issue as there is no evidence for its existence and also because Christians haven't yet reached agreement on what hell is.

 

[Peter1000]

You could start with going away and studying these things for a few hours, since you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.

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.

 

[Peter1000]

Most versions of hell that I know of are believed to be finely tuned so as to cause maximal suffering of its inhabitants. Therefore, it is not off topic... I guess. However, there is nothing to discuss on the issue as there is no evidence for its existence and also because Christians haven't yet reached agreement on what hell is.

Your version of hell is incorrect. A loving God would not cause maximal eternal suffering to His creations that did not follow Him. You are reflecting your knowledge of an apostate Christian version of hell. So study up and learn what a benevelent God would do, it is quite different.

The use of 'fiery furnace', and 'burning without being consumed' in the bible are metaphoric, meant to make you pause and consider your future. They are not real places of eternal torture.

 

[Peter1000]

I've explained myself already. I see no reason to do it again.

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.

I'm guessing that your knowledge of Christianity insists that if you are not a follower of Jesus Christ, you will go to hell.

Well, this may be true, but your Christian apostate version of hell is not a true version of what hell is truely like. So you are getting bad information. A benevolent God would not prepare this kind of place for his beloved creation, just because they don't follow Him exactly.

 

[Peter1000]

So, because your god model happens to be constructed in such a way that it is untestable and unfalsifiable, science should be thrown out the window?

You sound like a kid who throws all vegeteables in de thrash, because he can't have chocolate cake for dinner.

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.

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.

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.

If that is your mantra, then stick by it. You don't get to choose when you play that card. Don't be like an adult that throws all the vegetables away because you can't have your chocolate cake for dinner.

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