You have dismissed I believe the probability that Luke Barnes has provided, there are others but I imagine you would dismiss those as well. I could be wrong but that is how I am viewing your arguments.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have dismissed I believe the probability that Luke Barnes has provided, there are others but I imagine you would dismiss those as well. I could be wrong but that is how I am viewing your arguments.Actually, that the beauty of numbers, there is a right and wrong answer. It's not up to belief.
Constants being used does not imply their degree of specificity, their capacity for change, or supernatural origins.This paper is discussing Cosmic microwave background and how the fundamental constants are being used in a scientific way determined by their values to a very precise level using planck data. I thought there was some problem understanding how these constants values were determined and how they could be tweaked. I was wishing to show that these are very important elements in how we do science, and what different questions are studied in relationship to them.
Weak anthropic principle. Any universe in which an intelligent being can ask the question must be one that supports such an intelligent being.For the first challenge: how would you determine whether the universe allows life to exist or that the universe exists for life to exist?
Let's review those requirements one at a time thenThe second challenge: There are different requirements for different life forms even on earth. Some forms are unicellular that have a low metabolism and only exist for a brief period of time and they have their own requirements. Then there unicellular, low metabolism life that exists for a longer period of time. There are too the unicellular life forms that have a high metabolism which still only last a brief time and then some that last a longer period of time. There are requirements for advanced life that only survives a brief time and advanced life that exists and survives a long period of time.
Obviously those less advanced forms still take a great deal of required elements to be just so, but for advanced life like us, those requirements are more specific.
How so?For instance we talked about those constants that are required for chemistry to exist, for stars to exist and such as that which all life requires here on earth; but for advanced life there are more than just the specific ones for all life. Advanced life is timed just right to exist in relation to the sun.
Which cycle? the sun has many cycles, none of which are more prohibative to intelligent life than unintelligent to the best of my knowledge.If the sun wasn't where it was in its cycle intelligent life could not have evolved.
Why must intelligent life be aerobic? Why could other neutral gasses replace nitrogen? Speaking of, why are scuba divers able to use other gas mixes?If the ratio in the atmosphere of oxygen to nitrogen was not what it is advanced life functions would proceed to quickly if larger and too slowly if smaller.
Why could intelligent life not be less flammable (underwater?) or simply not be aerobic?(The oxygen in the atmosphere if greater plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily and if less advanced life would have too little to breath.
Dolphins have well developed brains and would be under no threat of spontaneous combustion with higher oxygen levels.There are numerous elements and factors like these that are required for advanced life that if different only simple life forms would be here.
No, when I am talking about fine tuning I am talking about the phenomena of fine tuning. Fine tuning is the phenomena of the fundamental constants being set so precisely that the universe exists and intelligent life is permitted. My explanation is a fine tuner. You really need to understand the difference between evidence and conclusions.
It isn't only that the universe would be different there are many factors that would eliminate any universe at all and life would not be able to exist.
A fine tuner.
Did you remember what this was in regard to? You were making the statement that I was unaware of evidence I presume that they have to eliminate a fine tuner?
And you are wrong. We have evidence of God. We have evidence of a fine tuner which is the fine tuned fundamental constants. That is the whole point to this thread.
Ok there is physical evidence that has the appearance of design. What does appearance of design mean?
It means that the way the universe is set up so precisely as to what it needs to be to exist itself and for life to exist in it and there are so many of them that it seems to be designed in the way we recognize design in intelligent forms.
Now this is not wishful thinking this is fact. Now one can put it off and claim the appearance of design is an illusion or it is actual design, but it takes more wishing to believe I feel for the atheist to claim illusion than the for the theist to acknowledge design.
I can see your point, but coming from a person who has no evidence in his life for God that would explain it.
Einstein felt that the fine tuning was evidence of intelligence. Period.
Now if he felt the Biblical God was ridiculous or childish has no bearing on the evidence.
The evidence is the fine tuning which even he concluded came from an intelligent spirit or mind.
Again, you are confusing evidence and conclusions.
That simply is not true.
I quote atheists, Christians, Deists, agnostics, secular unbelievers who supports fine tuning as a real phenomena. They support that the evidence is real.
That you don't like my conclusions on what that evidence supports is your problem.
Please understand the difference between evidence (which is supported by the quotes I have provided) and conclusions.
You are using someone who is discounted by his peers. That is the difference, not that he is countering "my" argument but he is countering known science and is being critiqued for it.
What you don't understand is that the fine tuning is the scientific verifiable evidence.
Conclusions are what one concludes from that evidence. Much of that is determined by worldview.
So you deny any evidence for a fine tuner then out of hand.
You are not using reason but your biases to decide.
You are the one that brought him in, did you forget why?
Have you read his material? He voices that belief in his science.
A fine tuner.
I never saw them. Could you post them again, this time not buried in a time wasting format?You have dismissed I believe the probability that Luke Barnes has provided, there are others but I imagine you would dismiss those as well. I could be wrong but that is how I am viewing your arguments.
Good I like this defense, you are saying that I don't know either. Which is true of course I don't but since we don't know which way it was we can't just assume one or the other. There is however some evidence that life was made for the universe and not the other way around. Chiefly if the uinverse were indeed made by a god for life you would expect to see more life, more hospitable areas. Theread is really only one way for a universe to produce life by natural means (ancient, huge etc) and that is exactly what we observe.For the first challenge: how would you determine whether the universe allows life to exist or that the universe exists for life to exist?
Do you have a paper on this I could read?There are numerous elements and factors like these that are required for advanced life that if different only simple life forms would be here.
What do you mean by degree of specificity?Constants being used does not imply their degree of specificity, their capacity for change, or supernatural origins.
Pi is likewise used all the time in scientific papers.
Yes, and if you are satisfied with that then there is no reason to wonder why or how.Weak anthropic principle. Any universe in which an intelligent being can ask the question must be one that supports such an intelligent being.
Let's review those requirements one at a time thenHow so?
Which cycle? the sun has many cycles, none of which are more prohibative to intelligent life than unintelligent to the best of my knowledge.
So I take this to mean that you feel other forms of intelligent life should be able to exist? I went back and read your post again, the point is not what might have been possible but the requirements for intelligent life as we know it, in this universe. So I think you are saying that if the levels we see were different then say Dolphins would take over top niche in the universe or something like them. However, advanced life of all kinds in this universe have requirements that must be met for evolution to that advancement to happen including those different from us on earth.Why must intelligent life be aerobic? Why could other neutral gasses replace nitrogen? Speaking of, why are scuba divers able to use other gas mixes?Why could intelligent life not be less flammable (underwater?) or simply not be aerobic?(Dolphins have well developed brains and would be under no threat of spontaneous combustion with higher oxygen levels.
What do you mean by degree of specificity?
The capacity for change in what way? They don't change and that is of course why they are called fundamental constants, so we do know that they don't change and we are discussing the best explanation for their origins.
Acknowledging that would be admitting defeat.Here's the problem:
1. indeed, they don't change... but you DO assume that they CAN be different
See my response to #1.2. the constants being what they are says exactly nothing about their origins
See my response to #1.3. your "explanation" for their origins is entirely determined by your a priori religious beliefs, which is not rooted in evidence, but in "faith".
Yes, and if you are satisfied with that then there is no reason to wonder why or how.
"the epoch in which we live coincides with the lifetime of main-sequence stars, such as the sun. During any other epoch, there would be no intelligent life around to measure the physical constants." We live at a time that is about half way through the life of our sun. The timing for the evolution of intelligent beings is critical for intelligent being to exist.
Conclusions are based on what evidence we have. So you are saying explanations must have evidence: The fine tuning of the universe which has the appearance of design is the evidence and the best explanation for the appearance of design is actual design. See how that works. The conclusion is based on the evidence.And you need to understand that your conclusions are your own.
You also need to understand that conclusions that can't be verified or supported, are infinite in number.
The science has observations and no proper explanations.
You are giving "explanations", based only on your a priori religious beliefs. You can't support or demonstrate these "explanations" with actual evidence.
Which is what everybody has been telling you all along.
Nor mine.Which doesn't change a word I said.
What evidence do you have that it is false?That is just false. Again, see above: that's what YOU believe.
No, you claimed that they did have evidence that would show God didn't do it.Shifting the burden of proof again.
The fine tuning is the evidence, the burden is met. Now it comes down to conclusions and what best explains that evidence.If you wish to claim a "tuner", the burden is on your claim.
Yes, it is up to you to disprove my claims. The evidence supports my claims, if you feel the evidence is better explained by something else or you feel you can counter my claims with your own then it is up to you to do it.It's not other people's job to disprove YOUR claims, which you didn't even bother to support yourself.
Here is one:I never saw them. Could you post them again, this time not buried in a time wasting format?
Well, it would be a much clearer indication of a supernatural guardian if we existed in a universe in which we couldn't naturally exist.Yes, and if you are satisfied with that then there is no reason to wonder why or how.
Not sure what your point is. yes, any life in the universe would exist during the period in which that form of life can exist. This quote just restates the weak anthropic principle, which was my point above. Are you backtracking and agreeing with me?"the epoch in which we live coincides with the lifetime of main-sequence stars, such as the sun. During any other epoch, there would be no intelligent life around to measure the physical constants." We live at a time that is about half way through the life of our sun. The timing for the evolution of intelligent beings is critical for intelligent being to exist.
We certainly cant rule out that other forms of life may be able to exist under different laws of nature.So I take this to mean that you feel other forms of intelligent life should be able to exist?
No, I'm saying you concern over excess oxygen causing things to ignite isn't really much of a threat to marine life. As such, since there exists no clear bar to intelligent life existing in marine environments, there's no reason this would be a greater threat to the development of some form of intelligent life than unintelligent lifeI went back and read your post again, the point is not what might have been possible but the requirements for intelligent life as we know it, in this universe. So I think you are saying that if the levels we see were different then say Dolphins would take over top niche in the universe or something like them.
Again, you seem to be backtracking to retroactively agree with me. If intelligent life could emerge dependant on different circumstances, then our circumstances are by definition not the only ones in which intelligent life could emerge.However, advanced life of all kinds in this universe have requirements that must be met for evolution to that advancement to happen including those different from us on earth.
Here is one:
Roger Penrose on entropy: How did he calculate that?
One of the fine-tuning arguments frequently used is the low entropy state of the universe at the Big Bang. This was calculated by Roger Penrose to be 1:1010123. How does he do this? He explains it in his book, The Emperor’s New Mind. Here is the section of the book that discusses it. Penrose uses the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for the entropy of a particle in a black hole to determine the entropy of a particle at the singularity of the Big Bang as if the entire universe were a giant black hole. He calculates this to be 1043. There are estimated to be 1080 particles in the observable universe.
1080 x 1043 = 10123 .
Entropy is on a logarithmic scale, so that is how he arrives at 1010123.
V = total phase-space volume available
W = original phase-space volume
V/W = 1010123
Therefore, the accuracy of the low entropy value was 1:1010123. Penrose says,
“This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in the ordinary denary notation: it would be `1' followed by 10123 successive `0 's! Even if we were to write a `0' on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe-and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.”
If there are more particles in the universe than 1080 (like an infinite number), all the more extraordinary!!
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?