The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

It would seem that you're the only credulous one here. I don't accept your claim that these scientists are somehow flummoxed by the data.

"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." George Ellis, Astrophysicist, The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Ed Harrison, Cosmologist, "Masks of the Universe".

"I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition. Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, The Mind of God.

In fact a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense. Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist, cosmologist.

How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed... Richard Morris, Neuroscience.

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect... higher intelligences... even to the limit of God... Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer and cosmologist.

 

[HitchSlap]

"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." George Ellis, Astrophysicist, The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Ed Harrison, Cosmologist, "Masks of the Universe".

"I belong to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion but nevertheless deny that the universe is a purposeless accident. Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level 'God' is a matter of taste and definition. Paul Davies, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, The Mind of God.

In fact a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense. Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist, cosmologist.

How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed... Richard Morris, Neuroscience.

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect... higher intelligences... even to the limit of God... Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer and cosmologist.

Posting massive wall of quote mines does not lessen my incredulity.

 

[Athée]

Actually that is not what he says at all. He is looking at different life forms and uses very specific examples to do it.

From the Link I gave you of Barnes:

4.1.3 Changing the Laws of Nature

What if the laws of nature were different? Stenger says: . . . what about a universe with a different set of “laws”? There is not much we can say about such a universe, nor do we need to. Not knowing what any of their parameters are, no one can claim that they are fine-tuned. [Foft 69] In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is suitably (and robustly) small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset. It is easy to find examples of such claims. • A universe governed by Maxwell’s Laws “all the way down” (i.e. with no quantum regime at small scales) will not have stable atoms — electrons radiate their kinetic energy and spiral rapidly into the nucleus — and hence no chemistry (Barrow & Tipler, 1986, pg. 303). We don’t need to know what the parameters are to know that life in such a universe is plausibly impossible. • If electrons were bosons, rather than fermions, then they would not obey the Pauli exclusion principle. There would be no chemistry. • If gravity were repulsive rather than attractive, then matter wouldn’t clump into complex structures. Remember: your density, thank gravity, is 1030 times greater than the average density of the universe. • If the strong force were a long rather than short-range force, then there would be no atoms. Any structures that formed would be uniform, spherical, undifferentiated lumps, of arbitrary size and incapable of complexity. • If, in electromagnetism, like charges attracted and opposites repelled, then there would be no atoms. As above, we would just have undifferentiated lumps of matter. • The electromagnetic force allows matter to cool into galaxies, stars, and planets. Without such interactions, all matter would be like dark matter, which can only form into large, diffuse, roughly spherical haloes of matter whose only internal structure consists of smaller, diffuse, roughly spherical subhaloes. The same idea seems to be true of laws in very different contexts. John Conway’s marvellous ‘Game of Life’ uses very simple rules, but allows some very complex and fascinating patterns. In fact, one can build a universal Turing machine. Yet the simplicity of these rules didn’t come for free. Conway had to search for it (Guy, 2008, pg. 37): His discovery of the Game of Life was effected only after the rejection of many patterns, triangular and hexagonal lattices as well as square ones, and of many other laws of birth and death, including the introduction of two and even three sexes. Acres of squared paper were covered, and he and his admiring entourage of

Figure 1: The “wedge”: x and y are two physical parameters that can vary up to some xmax and ymax, where we can allow these values to approach infinity if so desired. The point (x0, y0) represents the values of x and y in our universe. The life-permitting range is the shaded wedge. Varying only one parameter at a time only explores that part of parameter space which is vertically or horizontally adjacent to (x0, y0), thus missing most of parameter space. graduate students shuffled poker chips, foreign coins, cowrie shells, Go stones, or whatever came to hand, until there was a viable balance between life and death. It seems plausible that, even in the space of cellular automata, the set of laws that permit the emergence and persistence of complexity is a very small subset of all possible laws. Note that the question is not whether Conway’s Life is unique in having interesting properties. The point is that, however many ways there are of being interesting, there are vastly many more ways of being trivially simple or utterly chaotic. We should be cautious, however. Whatever the problems of defining the possible range of a given parameter, we are in a significantly more nebulous realm when we try to consider the set of all possible physical laws. It is not clear how such a fine-tuning case could be formalised, whatever its intuitive appeal.

A longer version of the same thing. Life as we know it requires chemistry yes, lfe as we know it requires atoms yes. What does this tell us about life not as we know it. ...nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The link was about how rare life is, was the article not clear in its content?

How would you know how rare life is, considering that humans have been to only 2 planets and a moon? And the second planet was just a robot.

Do you have any idea how big the universe is?

I think you need a bigger sample size, before drawing any conclusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Posting massive wall of quote mines does not lessen my incredulity.

I guess the problem rests with you then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A longer version of the same thing. Life as we know it requires chemistry yes, lfe as we know it requires atoms yes. What does this tell us about life not as we know it. ...nothing.

What kind of life could there be without atoms or chemistry?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is called explanations for evidence.

No. It's called just asserting stuff without supporting evidence.
It's called arguing from ignorance.

There is this phenomena that shows the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life.

That's not a phenomena. That's an observation. And only in the sense of "things are the way they are". Not in the sense of "therefor this is the reason why constants have the values that they have".

The majority of scientists agree that the universe is fine tuned to be life permitting for intelligent life.

Scientists agree that a universe that has constants and laws like the universe we live in, will be like the universe we live in. They agree that if the fundamentals of physics as we know it change, then so will the universe as a whole change accordingly.

That's what "fine tuning" in context of these quotes you keep spamming is about.

That is the evidence that needs explaining.

Physicist would certainly love to find an accurate model to explain how universes arise and what the possible range is of values and laws and whatnot.

But, and here's what everybody keeps telling you: such a model presently does not exist. And no, your particular religion is not such a model, nore does it have any explanatory power whatsoever.

I am giving an explanation, I am not adding to anything. Please try to understand the difference.

No, you're not "just giving an explanation". And I just explained that you're not. I predict that you will ignore my explanation and simply continue to claim that you aren't adding anything to it. While you so clearly are.

You are drawing conclusions ("giving explanations") for the observations of scientists. YOU are drawing those conclusions. Conclusions that are not at all supported, or even implied or insinuated, by the quotes you keep spamming.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What kind of life could there be without atoms or chemistry?

You think life can't be immaterial?

That's certainly interesting. Wink, wink.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How would you know how rare life is, considering that humans have been to only 2 planets and a moon? And the second planet was just a robot.

Do you have any idea how big the universe is?

I think you need a bigger sample size, before drawing any conclusions.

I am not the one drawing the conclusions. In fact:

https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/52/89I01/index.xml?section=science

 

[Oncedeceived]

You think life can't be immaterial?

That's certainly interesting. Wink, wink.

In a naturalistic world, do you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. It's called just asserting stuff without supporting evidence.
It's called arguing from ignorance.

So far I am the only one providing support for their claims. It is very obvious to people unhindered by blind confirmation bias.

That's not a phenomena. That's an observation. And only in the sense of "things are the way they are". Not in the sense of "therefor this is the reason why constants have the values that they have".

Phenomena: An occurrence, a circumstance, or a fact that is perceptible by the senses.

Scientists agree that a universe that has constants and laws like the universe we live in, will be like the universe we live in.

This is nonsensical.

They agree that if the fundamentals of physics as we know it change, then so will the universe as a whole change accordingly.

And the universe might not exist nor life. Right.

That's what "fine tuning" in context of these quotes you keep spamming is about.

That is the simplistic shadow of the argument.

Physicist would certainly love to find an accurate model to explain how universes arise and what the possible range is of values and laws and whatnot.

Yes...so?

But, and here's what everybody keeps telling you: such a model presently does not exist. And no, your particular religion is not such a model, nore does it have any explanatory power whatsoever.

What explanatory power does it neglect?

No, you're not "just giving an explanation". And I just explained that you're not. I predict that you will ignore my explanation and simply continue to claim that you aren't adding anything to it. While you so clearly are.

What explanation?

You are drawing conclusions ("giving explanations") for the observations of scientists. YOU are drawing those conclusions. Conclusions that are not at all supported, or even implied or insinuated, by the quotes you keep spamming.

That is simply false. the conclusions are supported and that is the point. There are few scientists that claim design is not a valid explanation even while they don't agree it is the explanation.

 

[Athée]

What kind of life could there be without atoms or chemistry?

Great question. Life not as we know it, hence the life not as we know it objection.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Great question. Life not as we know it, hence the life not as we know it objection.

In a multitude of scenarios there are no planets, no galaxies, no chemistry, no material, and on it goes. No life whatsoever can exist where there is nowhere to exist.

 

[KCfromNC]

What are you talking about?

I'm asking if you've had any luck backing up the claim you made in post 1142. You claimed you posted a reference but then didn't tell us what it was. Have you had any luck actually finding that reference or are we just supposed to guess?

 

[KCfromNC]

False accusations as usual.

Prove it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I clicked on one of her links, and it was from 1976(?) and only the abstract was available, and from what I could tell, had nothing to do with fine tuning.

The one I remember was a paper she claimed to read but also didn't know the number of pages it had, so that's seemed a bit suspect as well. It was made even more so when she couldn't even tell us which page she thought we were supposed to look at to find whatever it is she thought it showed.

 

[Athée]

In a multitude of scenarios there are no planets, no galaxies, no chemistry, no material, and on it goes. No life whatsoever can exist where there is nowhere to exist.[/QUOTE ]
This is a good point as far as it goes. If there is no universe for life to exist in, then life won't exist there. Of course perhaps life can exist outside a universe as well. You seem to think God is alive and therefore a lifeform that exists outside of a universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

Right and it is about fine tuning.

More specifically, it discusses many examples of apparent fine tuning which have natural explanations inherent in how the universe works. In other words, it directly contradicts your claims that fine tuning is the same as improbable. Since you have said you've read the paper there's no point in me posting quotes.

 

[Veera Chase]

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

What did your God fine tune the universe for? was it for the benefit of humans or was it for the benefit of all life regardless of human life?

 

[KCfromNC]

Posting massive wall of quote mines does not lessen my incredulity.

The fact that she has to try and sneak a neuroscientist in a list of supposed experts on pre-big bang cosmology is a hint that maybe the opinions she's attributing to a vast majority of those scientists aren't quite as widespread as she hopes. If they were, why not just grab more quotes from actual cosmologists?