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.
Why in your opinion was the universe fine tuned?
There was no need for that a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed, I expect you're frightened.It is not my opinion. It is a scientific phenomena.
Of Course! Then again, if I believed in Universe creating Pixies, then Universe Creating Pixies would be a better fit than Naturalism. The thing is, Naturalism better explains the facts because of the Evidence.Right, right like thunder and Thor. Very unconvincing to believers. The more science discovers the more it fits with Theism than naturalism.
This is all Waffle. At no stage did I talk about "Before" the Big Bang. Again, the Scientific Consensus = Everything that this Universe is, was there at the beginning of this Universe. What Scientific source can you point to that says this Universe started with Nothing? btw, this isn't a scientific paper... adequate as it might be.Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.
This is perhaps the most crucial and difficult aspect of the big bang theory. The notion that the physical universe came into existence with time and not in time has a long history, dating back to St Augustine in the 5th century. But it took Einstein’s theory of relativity to give the idea scientific respectability. The key feature of the theory of relativity is that space and time are part of the physical universe, and not merely an unexplained background arena in which the universe happens. Hence the origin of the physical universe must involve the origin of space and time too.
But where could we look for such an origin? Well, the theory of relativity permits space and time to possess a variety of boundaries or edges, technically known as singularities. One type of singularity exists in the center of a black hole. Another corresponds to a past boundary of space and time at the big bang. The idea is that, as you move backward in time, the universe becomes more and more compressed and the curvature or warping of space time escalates without limit, until it becomes infinite at the singularity. Very roughly, it resembles the apex of a cone, where the fabric of the cone tapers to an infinitely sharp point and ceases. It is here that space and time begin.
Once this idea is accepted, it is immediately obvious that the question “What happened before the big bang?” is meaningless. There was no such epoch as “before the big bang,” because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement “There was nothing before the big bang,”and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret “nothing” in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space simply did not exist prior to the big bang.
Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.
http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html
Walk with me. We've measured these constants. Have they changed? No. Have we been able to change them? No. Do we know if they could be different? No. Do we know if they have to be set at the beginning of the Universe? No. What foundation do you have to leap from these data points, to "God dunnit!". That the most knowledgeable in these fields tend towards Atheists for the vast majority in the face of these facts, is somehow not registering with you, is not even stunning anymore.The foundation for fine tuning is the measurements of the fundamental constants and how they are precisely what they need to be for our universe to exist and the intelligent life in it. That is a fact. Now either this fine tuning that is a real phenomena documented by science and appears to be as if a fine tuner set them to be exactly what they need to be is actually a fine tuner or just an illusion are the choices. You believe that it is an illusion created by the multiverse. So as you see we have a foundation for fine tuning it is called science and we have two choices to explain it: Real Design or an Illusion of design. So don't tell me there is no evidence for a Designer, or it couldn't be an illusion of a designer. Do you see?
Again, We still don't know that these constants COULD be different.The universe would still be fine tuned, it couldn't be anything but fine tuned for sure but the fine tuning would still be there but in some people's mind it would mean that it wasn't due to a Designer. Yet, why not? It just means that the Designer specifically set the tuning where it is and it couldn't be any different. The problem here is that there is no reason that we know of that they couldn't be different and the same problem exists, ours are fine tuned even if they could have not been.
No actually, they don't. They talk about this as a philosophical point, because we Don't know if these constants could be different. The only people putting it forward as fact are Creationists.Well you certainly are free to think that but of course the experts in the field disagree.
Okay, then let me say that your evidence of a fine tuner is better explained by my Universe Creating Pixies. My Universe Creating Pixies don't have a Bible that contradicts itself & requires interpreting with a pre-conceived bias. Also, They're Cute and non-interfering to boot. They don't condone slavery, nor do they go on genocidal rampages, nor do they expect me to pay tithe to an Earthly representative who wants to tell me what to do in their name, let alone fragment into 40,000 slightly varying, and occasionally incompatible sects that argue about those allegedly "non-existant" contradictions in their bible.See what you are doing....you are claiming that the AP and Multiverse are both plausible to explain the fine tuning which is the evidence to be explained and then you say "there is absolutely no evidence" for an omnipotent fine tuner. There is evidence and that is the fine tuning that you claim the AP and Multiverse explain. That is not a rational conclusion to claim there is no evidence when you cite the Ap and Multiverse to explain the evidence.
How do you know this? In the Old Testament, YHWH wandered around the yard on occasions with Adam & Eve. What if it is that another Universes' form of life is not physical in form? Perhaps it's so unique that it has the ability to create other Universes in parallel to their own? Perhaps that's what gave rise to a form of life you mistake as a God? Given a Multiverse could be possible, that explanation might very well have better support for it than yours. This, and the Universe Creating Pixies I mentioned earlier, all have as much evidence going for them as your proposition does, short of the anthropic principle which (together with the Multiverse hypothesis) is by far the most supported with what we know.Yes, it does. But the Fine Tuner is not physical. So He doesn't need the physical world to exist.
No, We Don't! Citation Again Please!We know there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time. That is what we know.
There was no need for that a simple "I don't know" would have sufficed, I expect you're frightened.
Rather sooner than later I suppose, one post and I've had my first and last contact with Oncedeceive.
Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.No, We Don't! Citation Again Please!
Then explain how naturalism explains it better than theism. So far I don't believe anyone is claiming that pixies can create universes and I've not ever met anyone that actually believes pixies exist.Of Course! Then again, if I believed in Universe creating Pixies, then Universe Creating Pixies would be a better fit than Naturalism. The thing is, Naturalism better explains the facts because of the Evidence.
Paul Davies is a top scientist in the field.This is all Waffle. At no stage did I talk about "Before" the Big Bang. Again, the Scientific Consensus = Everything that this Universe is, was there at the beginning of this Universe. What Scientific source can you point to that says this Universe started with Nothing? btw, this isn't a scientific paper... adequate as it might be.
1. Have they changed: NO.Walk with me. We've measured these constants. Have they changed? No. Have we been able to change them? No. Do we know if they could be different? No.
4. Do we know if they have to be set at the beginning of the universe: Yes.Do we know if they have to be set at the beginning of the Universe? No.
Well that isn't true. Most acknowledge the intelligence of the system. Many of the most knowledgeable have become desists or theists, while many just hope for a good naturalistic reason for it all.What foundation do you have to leap from these data points, to "God dunnit!". That the most knowledgeable in these fields tend towards Atheists for the vast majority in the face of these facts, is somehow not registering with you, is not even stunning anymore.
No, because the universe had to be what it is to permit life to exist. If the multiverse exists, and if other life exists then where did the constants that permit those universe to exist and for life to exist in them. The universe generator if natural, needs to be fine tuned to allow fine tuning of all universes.I can easily say that We, Life, is fine tuned to exist in this Universe. Now, this would actually be more accurate. As has been pointed out elsewhere ad-infinitum, If the Multiverse is the cause, there will be some other form of life in some other Universe that looks very different to Life Here, but is equally fine tuned to exist in THAT Universe. They too will be pondering how their universe is so fine-tuned as to allow their form of life to exist, and that other universes like Ours are completely incompatible with their forms of life, and therefore a select few of them will be positing as 100% fact that their Eternal-Wobbly-Ectoplasm is their alleged Universe Creator. In fact, if you believe in Heaven and Hell, then you already believe a form of this to be True - after all, Life in Heaven/Hell is completely detached and isolated (just like some other Universe) and not dependent on the same physical body you have here...
So? Tell me why this would make a difference and that it would eliminate fine tuning.Again, We still don't know that these constants COULD be different.
FALSE. Do you think those who have PhD's in the field are all creationists? Of course you don't but they aren't sitting on their hands and saying well we don't know if these constants could be different so fine tuning is a moot point. They don't believe that because they know there has to be a reason that they couldn't be different and they don't have one. Maybe they will discover some underlying law that would prohibit the constants from being anything but what they are but then what of that Law? What would make that fine tuned law only allow life permitting constants?No actually, they don't. They talk about this as a philosophical point, because we Don't know if these constants could be different. The only people putting it forward as fact are Creationists.
The fact that you don't like the Theist's God is no argument against fine tuning by a fine tuner.Okay, then let me say that your evidence of a fine tuner is better explained by my Universe Creating Pixies. My Universe Creating Pixies don't have a Bible that contradicts itself & requires interpreting with a pre-conceived bias. Also, They're Cute and non-interfering to boot. They don't condone slavery, nor do they go on genocidal rampages, nor do they expect me to pay tithe to an Earthly representative who wants to tell me what to do in their name, let alone fragment into 40,000 slightly varying, and occasionally incompatible sects that argue about those allegedly "non-existant" contradictions in their bible.
Anthropic principle isn't an explanation, it is an observation.How do you know this? In the Old Testament, YHWH wandered around the yard on occasions with Adam & Eve. What if it is that another Universes' form of life is not physical in form? Perhaps it's so unique that it has the ability to create other Universes in parallel to their own? Perhaps that's what gave rise to a form of life you mistake as a God? Given a Multiverse could be possible, that explanation might very well have better support for it than yours. This, and the Universe Creating Pixies I mentioned earlier, all have as much evidence going for them as your proposition does, short of the anthropic principle which (together with the Multiverse hypothesis) is by far the most supported with what we know.
I agree, the poster makes a blanket claim without evidence.
The poster really has to though, to protect their belief.
You keep making claims about the starting conditions of our Universe. At best, we can within a few plancks of the origin, but that's it, nothing about T=0 (let alone outside our Universe) because everything we know stops being accurate there.There was no form to change from. There was no space (needed to change form), no energy (needed to change form) no matter (no quantum nothing to change form) and no time (needed to change form). Nothing of the natural universe existed...nothing and then it did.
We have NO EVIDENCE for a God. We are however bathed in a naturalistic Universe for which we've been able to discover a great many things... This is how we've come to the greatest preponderance of knowledge we have now, by studying and accurately modeling within this naturalistic Universe. We've not been able to use anything we know about any religion to further our collective knowledge, and in fact, Theism has done a great many things to destroy this knowledge over the centuries. Why on earth would we want to depart from a proven working method of discovering knowledge to your presupposition about how this Universe came to be?There are two ways the universe came into existence:
1. God created it.
2. It came about by an unknown natural cause.
We don't know for certain which is the cause. So we need to determine from what we know (fine tuning) which cause is the best explanation.
We decide which one is the best explanation. I say it is better explained by theism. You say it is better explained by naturalism.
Why don't you provide evidence that fine tuning for intelligent life is actual in the first place. Personal opinions and philosophical discussions does not equal scientific consensus.You are claiming the fine tuning for intelligent life, a scientific claim is fallacious nonsense and ignorant? Tsk Tsk. Provide documentation that fine tuning for intelligent life is fallacious nonsense and ignorance.
Why don't you first show 1. that they CAN be different, and 2. that fine tuning is required, or that there are not enough universes that one would just happen to have the exact constants required for intelligent life as we know it. So far, we have 1 out of 1 Universes that supports intelligent life.Unless you can show 1. That they couldn't be different and 2. That it would eliminate fine tuning even if they couldn't, fine tuning is not eliminated.
First of all, you were the one that asserted that we don't know if other universes exist nor whether or not carbon based life is the only life that exists. So that is your assertion and one that is not in evidence whatsoever, but for the scientists that have used computer programs that can hypothesize trillions of them, they still show life being extremely vastly rare in those trillions of those hypothesized universes.
I have seen nothing in the way of actual evidence that supports a God of any kind in the first place.I've seen nothing that refutes God as the best explanation for fine tuning.
....If we can get That Far, then we can start working on that problem with as little presupposing magic invisible entities as we study the current problems, i.e. using the Scientific Method. This is demonstrably by Far the most productive way to handle these problems.Its simply true. Multiverse just pushes the fine tuning back to the universe generator.
Only Deists/Theists would claim this. The overwhelming majority (and of course this is the current Scientific Consensus btw...) wouldn't go any further than to say "the Universe appears to be fine tuned." That's It! Nothing about"...to support life", let alone "...for Intelligent Life", etc. that you're trying to put forward.I've quoted non-believers, Deists, Christians, secular scientists and agnostics. They claim fine tuning for intelligent life is real.
As I mentioned earlier, this is a layman's quick five on the Big Bang. It isn't scientifically accurate because of constraints on the audience, and brevity restrictions I'd imagine, and is not meant to be anything more than a primer for the average person to understand the basics, therefore, there's some use of not entirely accurate descriptors. Here's an explanation of "Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss:Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.
http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html
Universe creating Pixies aren't self-obsessed, in fact, they are so humble that they prefer not to be seen & take on a Deistic role in this Universe.Then explain how naturalism explains it better than theism. So far I don't believe anyone is claiming that pixies can create universes and I've not ever met anyone that actually believes pixies exist.
I can change gravity to be a Repelling force in my computer model, and I'm not even a Scientist. Do you think my being able to imagine such a thing means there's now a fine tuner within this Universe?1. Have they changed: NO.
2. Have we been able to change them: No however, scientists can change them in computer models.
Yes we do have reason, We can measure them, they're constant and we can't change them. That's EXACTLY why we have reason to believe that they couldn't be different.3. Do we know if they could be different: No. however, we don't have any reason to believe that they couldn't.
No, No we don't! All of these constants could very well be properties inherent in the distillate energy & matter from the big bang. Can you rule that out?4. Do we know if they have to be set at the beginning of the universe: Yes.
If not the universe would not exist. The expansion energy of the Big Bang, the overall amount of matter that was present and the ratio of matter to antimatter, the initial rate of the universe's expansion and the degree of entropy are all necessary right at the beginning to mention a few.
I don't accept this. Show me a Scientist who has become a Deist or Theist because of this Fine Tuning argument. Why is the Scientific Consensus not in agreement with you?Well that isn't true. Most acknowledge the intelligence of the system. Many of the most knowledgeable have become desists or theists, while many just hope for a good naturalistic reason for it all.
What nonsense. If I rolled a pair of dice a million times, are those results fine tuned? Whatever process by which universes come about in a multiverse setting, Doesn't have to be fine tuned to give rise to one like this one eventually. It just so happens that we're here to enjoy this universe because we wouldn't exist in our current form using other universe's constants.No, because the universe had to be what it is to permit life to exist. If the multiverse exists, and if other life exists then where did the constants that permit those universe to exist and for life to exist in them. The universe generator if natural, needs to be fine tuned to allow fine tuning of all universes.
Quantum fluctuations are natural. What is the cause of Quantum Fluctuations? After all, these are considered to be a principle consideration in the formation of our universe.The multiverse depends on something if it is nature and has a cause. In the natural world there is cause and effect.
If they're an inherent property of the fallout from the Big Bang and its resulting condensate matter, then no fine tuning happens. Simple.So? Tell me why this would make a difference and that it would eliminate fine tuning.
How is it you're missing this? Scientist, at Best, talk about how it Appears fine tuned to allow life. "Appears fine tuned" Does NOT Equal "Is fine tuned". Rubbish about what they do or don't believe, You haven't shown any Scientist that changed their view on this. What is shown by the Evidence is that these constants don't change. We can model hypothetical different constants, but this still doesn't mean they can be different, let alone fine tuned.FALSE. Do you think those who have PhD's in the field are all creationists? Of course you don't but they aren't sitting on their hands and saying well we don't know if these constants could be different so fine tuning is a moot point. They don't believe that because they know there has to be a reason that they couldn't be different and they don't have one. Maybe they will discover some underlying law that would prohibit the constants from being anything but what they are but then what of that Law? What would make that fine tuned law only allow life permitting constants?
I don't believe fine tuning is actual, let alone a fine tuner.... and then your particular version of a fine tuner.The fact that you don't like the Theist's God is no argument against fine tuning by a fine tuner.
...and in that case, that's the only observation we have.Anthropic principle isn't an explanation, it is an observation.
I'm not the one making the claims, I have given you a link from Paul Davies who very clearly says that the singularity came from nothing. You are ignoring what he is saying and here is another source:You keep making claims about the starting conditions of our Universe. At best, we can within a few plancks of the origin, but that's it, nothing about T=0 (let alone outside our Universe) because everything we know stops being accurate there.
Millions have evidence of God, you have no evidence of God.We have NO EVIDENCE for a God.
This is wrong, science was developed in a Christian framework. If not for the location of this universe science could never work. "Part of the fine tuning".We are however bathed in a naturalistic Universe for which we've been able to discover a great many things... This is how we've come to the greatest preponderance of knowledge we have now, by studying and accurately modeling within this naturalistic Universe. We've not been able to use anything we know about any religion to further our collective knowledge, and in fact, Theism has done a great many things to destroy this knowledge over the centuries. Why on earth would we want to depart from a proven working method of discovering knowledge to your presupposition about how this Universe came to be?
I've read Paul Davies opinion pieces, they're fringe beliefs at the least and he's drawn the ire of the general Scientific Community many times because he involves his personal religious beliefs. This isn't how Science is done. As many Cosmologists will tell you, we're struggling to get back to the Planck Time just after the Big Bang in unraveling what happened, let alone knowing what conditions gave rise to the Universe in the first place... Everything at & prior the Big Bang is just philosophical & theoretical. We know NOTHING as fact about it. And by the way, the references you quote here talking about "before" the big bang (non-sensical) is from a thinly disguised pseudo-science (read:creationist) website referring to a philosophy & faith publication by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler called "The Creator: Beyond Time and Space", hardly a scientific source. Remember, before the Big Bang is like north of the North Pole - nonsensical.I'm not the one making the claims, I have given you a link from Paul Davies who very clearly says that the singularity came from nothing. You are ignoring what he is saying and here is another source:
Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. Emphasis mine.
Well, I remain unconvinced. What evidence is there for God that would actually stand up as Scientific Evidence?Millions have evidence of God, you have no evidence of God.
It would seem Science and Fundamentalist Religion have gone through an ugly break-up then, because they're barely on talking terms since Science started revealing actual knowledge...This is wrong, science was developed in a Christian framework. If not for the location of this universe science could never work. "Part of the fine tuning".
Provide any documentation for this accusation. Paul Davies is considered one of the top in the field and actually doesn't provide any religious beliefs in his scientific work that I am aware of. What fringe beliefs are you referring to? Provide citations please.I've read Paul Davies opinion pieces, they're fringe beliefs at the least and he's drawn the ire of the general Scientific Community many times because he involves his personal religious beliefs.
Are you saying that we can't know what happened in the trillionth of a trillionth of second prior to space, matter, energy and time coming to being...I agree because there is nothing prior to that to speak of in terms of what we see after space, matter, energy and time come into being.This isn't how Science is done. As many Cosmologists will tell you, we're struggling to get back to the Planck Time just after the Big Bang in unraveling what happened, let alone knowing what conditions gave rise to the Universe in the first place... Everything at & prior the Big Bang is just philosophical & theoretical. We know NOTHING as fact about it.
I've not provided any sources from these two. My source that stated that was Paul Davies (referencing Stephen Hawking).And by the way, the references you quote here talking about "before" the big bang (non-sensical) is from a thinly disguised pseudo-science (read:creationist) website referring to a philosophy & faith publication by Mark Eastman and Chuck Missler called "The Creator: Beyond Time and Space", hardly a scientific source. Remember, before the Big Bang is like north of the North Pole - nonsensical.
Again, this science vs. religion is relatively new.Well, I remain unconvinced. What evidence is there for God that would actually stand up as Scientific Evidence?
It would seem Science and Fundamentalist Religion have gone through an ugly break-up then, because they're barely on talking terms since Science started revealing actual knowledge...
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies ,Provide any documentation for this accusation. Paul Davies is considered one of the top in the field and actually doesn't provide any religious beliefs in his scientific work that I am aware of. What fringe beliefs are you referring to? Provide citations please.
Yes, I agree.Are you saying that we can't know what happened in the trillionth of a trillionth of second prior to space, matter, energy and time coming to being...I agree because there is nothing prior to that to speak of in terms of what we see after space, matter, energy and time come into being.
I'm not sure where you got your quote from so I went looking, and found it at http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ - which turns out to be a Creationist/Intelligent Design pseudo-scientific website.I've not provided any sources from these two. My source that stated that was Paul Davies (referencing Stephen Hawking).
I guess if you think Galileo's house arrest in 1633 for supporting Heliocentrism in contradiction to the Church's position is relatively new, sure.Again, this science vs. religion is relatively new.
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?