Author Topic: A fine tuned universe.  (Read 12806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shakaib

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #116 on: September 27, 2008, 09:59:07 AM »
[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CfOFhFw4tGE[/youtube]

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #117 on: September 28, 2008, 05:48:52 PM »
I'm sorry nihilianth, but there is an explanation to the finely tuned nature of everything.

Quantum fluctuations. The laws of physics are finely tuned, it seems. But, if there are an infinite amount of possibilities for universes to exist, then those finely tuned laws of physics are not in fact finely tuned at all, but a random chance.

However, that takes me back to this:

Why do we happen to exist here, at this small area of time, in this one universe, rather than any of the other infinite possibilities where the tuning might not be as convenient?

Guess what, we'll also never know if something else is being in the same way that I know I am, and assume you are.

We'll also never know why anything exists at all..

Offline xphobe

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5364
  • Darwins +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • the truth is out there
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #118 on: September 28, 2008, 09:40:38 PM »
That is quite a leap, Pos, to go from what velkyn said - holy books do not accurately describe anything scientific - to what you said.  That is a giant non sequitur.

I was going to make the same observation, but you beat me to it.  Nevertheless I get the feeling that it's gonna just fly right on by.
I stopped believing for a little while this morning. Journey is gonna be so pissed when they find out...

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #119 on: September 29, 2008, 04:41:38 AM »
However, that takes me back to this:

Why do we happen to exist here, at this small area of time, in this one universe, rather than any of the other infinite possibilities where the tuning might not be as convenient?

I think there are a number of possible answers to that, but wouldn't it follow that the universe in which 'fine tuning' is most suited to our existence would be the one in which we're most likely to exist?
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #120 on: September 29, 2008, 10:28:06 AM »
Even the Qur'an says god made the universe:

"He created the Heavens and the Earth from nothing". And very Scientifically said too.

even the "fill-in-the-blank with any holy book" says that "x" deity made the universe.  Until you can show me where the Qu'ran says anything about accretion, radioactive heating, etc, your claim that is is "scientific" is nonsense.   Anyone can claim that their holy book is "scientific" when they say that a myth is "really" scientific words disguised by their invisible friend.   

So all the archaeological digs that were done because of the bible should just be ignored then? Guess what? It does not have to fit your definition of "science."


wow.  Okay, first, until you show these actual "all kinds of mathematical truths in the Quran. Plenty of scientific truths in the bible as well." in the Qu'ran or your bible, you are just blowing smoke.  We know that your claim simply isn't true.  Pi does not equal 3. Bats aren't birds. Rabbits aren't ruminants.  I have seen the excuse that when the bible was written that's what "science" said, but two wrongs still don't agree with the actual facts.  This would seem to argue that God isn't any more advanced than the current human science and not "omniscient" at all.

As for what you said about archaeology, you are again confused.  There were digs done to "prove" the Bible was real.  The only one that I think even has a scrap of evidence is that Babylon did occupy the east coast of the Mediterranean and the Israelites did absorb some of their religious practices.  There is no evidence of an "exodus".  There is no evidence of a tribe wandering around in the desert for decades.  There is no evidence for a Flood.  There is no evidence of an earthquake or a "darkening of the sun" simultaneously at the early decades of the common era.  I am sure you think that some mention of a city is "proof" that the Bible is real, but by that claim, you also say that other religions are just as real as your since cities from those area are mentioned too.   

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #121 on: September 30, 2008, 11:26:26 AM »
Even the Qur'an says god made the universe:

"He created the Heavens and the Earth from nothing". And very Scientifically said too.

even the "fill-in-the-blank with any holy book" says that "x" deity made the universe.  Until you can show me where the Qu'ran says anything about accretion, radioactive heating, etc, your claim that is is "scientific" is nonsense.   Anyone can claim that their holy book is "scientific" when they say that a myth is "really" scientific words disguised by their invisible friend.   

So all the archaeological digs that were done because of the bible should just be ignored then? Guess what? It does not have to fit your definition of "science."


wow.  Okay, first, until you show these actual "all kinds of mathematical truths in the Quran. Plenty of scientific truths in the bible as well." in the Qu'ran or your bible, you are just blowing smoke.  We know that your claim simply isn't true.  Pi does not equal 3. Bats aren't birds. Rabbits aren't ruminants.  I have seen the excuse that when the bible was written that's what "science" said, but two wrongs still don't agree with the actual facts.  This would seem to argue that God isn't any more advanced than the current human science and not "omniscient" at all.

As for what you said about archaeology, you are again confused.  There were digs done to "prove" the Bible was real.  The only one that I think even has a scrap of evidence is that Babylon did occupy the east coast of the Mediterranean and the Israelites did absorb some of their religious practices.  There is no evidence of an "exodus".  There is no evidence of a tribe wandering around in the desert for decades.  There is no evidence for a Flood.  There is no evidence of an earthquake or a "darkening of the sun" simultaneously at the early decades of the common era.  I am sure you think that some mention of a city is "proof" that the Bible is real, but by that claim, you also say that other religions are just as real as your since cities from those area are mentioned too.   



velkyn, did you even look at the video in reply #116?
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #122 on: September 30, 2008, 11:30:10 AM »
Why should anyone bother looking at what you post, nihilanth?  You have cavalierly ignored every point made to you in this thread.

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #123 on: September 30, 2008, 11:35:07 AM »
Why should anyone bother looking at what you post, nihilanth?  You have cavalierly ignored every point made to you in this thread.

Actually reply #116 is Shakaib's post but you are too busy trying to persecute me to notice. Also, I am sure velkyn can answer for herself without the likes of you answering for her.  :P  Also, I am pretty sure that she would NOT want the likes of you to answer for her either, but I am not 100% certain about that.

Oh BTY, the Mcain resume was quite hilarious.  ;D
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #124 on: September 30, 2008, 11:44:02 AM »
Thank you.  Glad you enjoyed it.

Anyway, I'm ready whenever you are to going back to the original topic, or our little sidetrip about soil toxicity on Mars.  The truth is that you have revealed a tendency to talk about things you know nothing about.  I find that intriguing.

Also, every bit as much as velkyn doesn't need my assistance in addressing posts, I doubt Shakaib needs yours in prodding velkyn.

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #125 on: September 30, 2008, 12:09:27 PM »
Thank you.  Glad you enjoyed it.

Anyway, I'm ready whenever you are to going back to the original topic, or our little sidetrip about soil toxicity on Mars.  The truth is that you have revealed a tendency to talk about things you know nothing about.  I find that intriguing.

Also, every bit as much as velkyn doesn't need my assistance in addressing posts, I doubt Shakaib needs yours in prodding velkyn.

Hey she asked and there is an answer.
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #126 on: September 30, 2008, 01:14:55 PM »
Even the Qur'an says god made the universe:

"He created the Heavens and the Earth from nothing". And very Scientifically said too.

even the "fill-in-the-blank with any holy book" says that "x" deity made the universe.  Until you can show me where the Qu'ran says anything about accretion, radioactive heating, etc, your claim that is is "scientific" is nonsense.   Anyone can claim that their holy book is "scientific" when they say that a myth is "really" scientific words disguised by their invisible friend.   

So all the archaeological digs that were done because of the bible should just be ignored then? Guess what? It does not have to fit your definition of "science."


wow.  Okay, first, until you show these actual "all kinds of mathematical truths in the Quran. Plenty of scientific truths in the bible as well." in the Qu'ran or your bible, you are just blowing smoke.  We know that your claim simply isn't true.  Pi does not equal 3. Bats aren't birds. Rabbits aren't ruminants.  I have seen the excuse that when the bible was written that's what "science" said, but two wrongs still don't agree with the actual facts.  This would seem to argue that God isn't any more advanced than the current human science and not "omniscient" at all.

As for what you said about archaeology, you are again confused.  There were digs done to "prove" the Bible was real.  The only one that I think even has a scrap of evidence is that Babylon did occupy the east coast of the Mediterranean and the Israelites did absorb some of their religious practices.  There is no evidence of an "exodus".  There is no evidence of a tribe wandering around in the desert for decades.  There is no evidence for a Flood.  There is no evidence of an earthquake or a "darkening of the sun" simultaneously at the early decades of the common era.  I am sure you think that some mention of a city is "proof" that the Bible is real, but by that claim, you also say that other religions are just as real as your since cities from those area are mentioned too.   

velkyn, did you even look at the video in reply #116?

Yes, yes I did.  Just how does counting words mean anything, much less that the Qu'ran is scientifically accurate?  At one point in high school, my class were tasked to write a book report with a set number of sentences of certain grammar structures (including the "gerund").  It was done, to differing degrees of ability but it was done.  Do you really think no one could do the same with the Qu'ran? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #127 on: October 01, 2008, 10:15:31 PM »
Quote
Do you really think no one could do the same with the Qu'ran? 

Not back then. Not with such accuracy.
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #128 on: October 02, 2008, 11:22:31 AM »
Quote
Do you really think no one could do the same with the Qu'ran? 

Not back then. Not with such accuracy.

why? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #129 on: October 02, 2008, 03:43:03 PM »
Because  :D
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #130 on: October 03, 2008, 03:27:12 PM »
Because  :D

An expected answer.  I know you can't come up with anything better. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #131 on: October 03, 2008, 08:41:07 PM »
Because  :D

An expected answer.  I know you can't come up with anything better. 

Not for you.  ;)
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

CreationshinesGodsglory

  • Guest
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #132 on: October 06, 2008, 03:16:06 AM »
I agree, most certainly fine tuned! :)

Michael J. Behe

Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.Scientists use the term “black box” for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications—I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can’t catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.

Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of “signal” chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.

Molecular machines are designed.Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.**


Offline xphobe

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5364
  • Darwins +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • the truth is out there
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #133 on: October 06, 2008, 08:25:08 AM »
Why should biochemistry textbooks say anything at all about evolution?  That's not their purpose.  Unlike creationists, Biochemists have the good sense to keep such debates from cluttering up science classrooms.

Behe's mousetrap and flagellum motor have been thoroughly debunked elsewhere on the web and on this forum.  But this thread is not about "irreducible complexity" in biological systems.  It is whether the Universe's parameters are tuned by the hand of god. 

Please block-quote someone more relevant than Behe, such as an astrophysicist.  Or better yet, use your own words.
I stopped believing for a little while this morning. Journey is gonna be so pissed when they find out...

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #134 on: October 06, 2008, 09:23:56 AM »
^^^ And the creationist game of Whack-a-Mole continues.

IC systems exist in nature, and they are explicable by natural selection. The claim that the flagellum - or any other IC system, for that matter - could not have arisen naturally because it is IC has been debunked.

It amazes me that Creationists don't even bother to do their homework, and continue to repeat falsehoods that have been established as such time and time again.

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DK_HVrjKcvrU
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #135 on: October 06, 2008, 11:56:17 AM »

Quote
I agree, most certainly fine tuned! :)
you really should read somethign else than what someone told you too.  The Dover trial transcript for instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Dover_testimony

Quote
Michael J. Behe

Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.Scientists use the term “black box” for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.   

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

And we know that it doesn't.  Unfortunately, Mr. Behe doesn't seem to realize that science has gone beyond Darwin.  You would also realize that Darwin goes into detail on how he already knows how organs work and change function if you would dare to read Origin of the Species" (page 156-157). http://books.google.com/books?id=aSvwT_heD4YC

Quote
Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications—I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can’t catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

Again, Mr. Behe seems to think that the trap has to have always and will always catch mice.  It doesn't.  Things evolve into different uses.

Quote
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.

And wrong again!  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3416_08.html 

Quote
Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of “signal” chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.

Wrong.  http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html 

Quote
Molecular machines are designed.Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

And an actual lie.  No, the textbooks and journal articles do have lots of information about how the systems evolved.  As soon as a creationist starts usign "many" and imply "all", that is an excellent way to see that they have no scientists who "frankly admit their bewilderment".  They do love to trot out names of those who agree with them in other instances, why not now?
Quote
Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.**

Then why no articles in peer reviewed journals by creationists?  Mr. Behe has been shown to be wrong.  So has Dembski, et al.

Oh, btw, rather than plagiarising stuff, please write your own opinions.  Original source for regurgitated nonsense is here: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Shakaib

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #136 on: October 06, 2008, 03:00:57 PM »
The Universe is very finely tuned, this shows BIG evidence of God, and whoever thinks the Universe didn't require a creator seriously needs to... think.

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #137 on: October 06, 2008, 03:34:34 PM »
The Universe is very finely tuned, this shows BIG evidence of God, and whoever thinks the Universe didn't require a creator seriously needs to... think.

That's the problem Shakaib. They refuse to even comtemplate the possibility. Their closed mindedness and their inability to think for themselves blinds them.

The whole idea of this forum is based on a book that somebody else thought up of. Also, I have yet to see one of these atheistic individuals  ever dissagree with anybody like Dawkins or Hitchens, because those men are the gods of these folks. Their idols. They do not beleive in God, so they turn to men and idolize them.

The irony is uncanny.

You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #138 on: October 06, 2008, 04:59:28 PM »
The Universe is very finely tuned, this shows BIG evidence of God, and whoever thinks the Universe didn't require a creator seriously needs to... think.

That's the problem Shakaib. They refuse to even comtemplate the possibility. Their closed mindedness and their inability to think for themselves blinds them.

The whole idea of this forum is based on a book that somebody else thought up of. Also, I have yet to see one of these atheistic individuals  ever dissagree with anybody like Dawkins or Hitchens, because those men are the gods of these folks. Their idols. They do not beleive in God, so they turn to men and idolize them.

The irony is uncanny.

I'll reply to both of these because, well, I might as well nip this in the bud.

The 'fine tuning' argument neither establishes nor falsifies the existence of a divine entity. The simple counter-argument to the 'fine-tuning' argument is this: what alternative kind of universe, developing according to natural processes, would one expect us to exist in? It's like the old Zen koan:

"Why am I here?"
"Where else would you be?"

If we were here despite the universe being configured in such a way that we ought not to exist at all, according to the laws of nature, then that would be a matter of concern, something that would demand an explanation.

But the problem is, when you start getting down to the question of "why is the universe the way it is?" (which physicists are attempting to investigate), the obvious provisional rejoinder is simply this: as opposed to what? A universe that is inimical to human life? So what? Do you think we'd be able to observe such a phenomenon? How do we know such a phenomenon is possible - because someone's looked at a bunch of arbitrary constants we use to reconcile our own man-made Metric system of measurement with reality, and said 'hey, if these were all different, nothing would work!' That establishes nothing. Nada, zilch, zero, rien, null, zip. Nothing.

And the thing is, one can posit a kind of deistic entity that simply "lit the blue-touch paper" and let natural processes carry on for billions of years according to their own devices, which is the most that anyone might be required to concede from any such 'fine-tuning' argument (if it weren't so horribly flawed), but - and here's the killer - that's not the kind of entity you guys believe in. It does not back up one iota the position that either of you hold. And it still holds no explanatory power - it still does not explain how some sort of deistic entity got there in the first place; and it is still arguably less parsimonious than brane cosmology or M-Theory or any of the assortment of alternative ideas that people bandy about as putative explanations. All it does is take us back where we started - that attempts at "proofs" of divine existence are just as futile as they ever were. In short, girls, you got nothing.

You may not like the way I think, but please don't insult me by saying I don't. You say we're closed-minded, but if all you offer is arguments that vanish in a puff of smoke when you attempt to analyze them for any real content, maybe you should consider that perhaps it's not our minds that are at fault, but the arguments you present?

Come on, throw us a bone here. Give us something we can actually work with. Surely all those great, open-minded theists can come up with something somewhat more compelling than this.

And for the record, nihilanth, although I cannot speak for others it is remiss of you to make the blanket assertion that people here 'idolize' the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. I was a non-theist long before I'd heard of either of them. Dawkins is okay, knows his biology, but TGD wasn't the best material I've read on the subject of God. (Indeed, I'd argue that some of the posts on this forum and its predecessor have been of better quality.) As for Hitchens, he's not really on my radar. Where I come from is simply this: it's the ideas that are relevant, not the people who came up with them. (And I wouldn't say that Dawkins came up with anything particularly new in TGD.)
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 05:14:09 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Alkan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1051
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Mt. Lemmon, AZ. Challenging, but wondrous ride.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #139 on: October 06, 2008, 06:25:01 PM »
DID ANYONE READ THIS? IT DISCREDITS THE THREAD:

Quote
I'm sorry nihilianth, but there is an explanation to the finely tuned nature of everything.

Quantum fluctuations. The laws of physics are finely tuned, it seems. But, if there are an infinite amount of possibilities for universes to exist, then those finely tuned laws of physics are not in fact finely tuned at all, but a random chance.

However, that takes me back to this:

Why do we happen to exist here, at this small area of time, in this one universe, rather than any of the other infinite possibilities where the tuning might not be as convenient?

Guess what, we'll also never know if something else is being in the same way that I know I am, and assume you are.

We'll also never know why anything exists at all...
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 08:09:05 PM by Free Thinker »

Offline Shakaib

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #140 on: October 07, 2008, 02:29:17 AM »
Richard Dawkins is so ugly, I don't know why you like him! Or.. I know why.. because of the GOD DELUSION book and that he supports you in Atheism.. Well, He's wrong, I can tell him that.

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #141 on: October 07, 2008, 08:09:04 AM »
Now now. I can respect Dawkins even though I dissagree with him.

Hitchens however, get's on my nerves.
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline nihilanth

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1317
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That's right. A red X. yaaay.
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #142 on: October 07, 2008, 08:13:48 AM »
DID ANYONE READ THIS? IT DISCREDITS THE THREAD:

Quote
I'm sorry nihilianth, but there is an explanation to the finely tuned nature of everything.

Quantum fluctuations. The laws of physics are finely tuned, it seems. But, if there are an infinite amount of possibilities for universes to exist, then those finely tuned laws of physics are not in fact finely tuned at all, but a random chance.

However, that takes me back to this:

Why do we happen to exist here, at this small area of time, in this one universe, rather than any of the other infinite possibilities where the tuning might not be as convenient?

Guess what, we'll also never know if something else is being in the same way that I know I am, and assume you are.

We'll also never know why anything exists at all...

That's the problem. I think someday we will. When and if God ever answers the question.
You can't prove it either way so you have to make a choice.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #143 on: October 07, 2008, 08:38:32 AM »
Now now. I can respect Dawkins even though I dissagree with him.

Hitchens however, get's on my nerves.

I'm with you on that one.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Shakaib

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: A fine tuned universe.
« Reply #144 on: October 07, 2008, 09:52:11 AM »
Now now. I can respect Dawkins even though I dissagree with him.

Hitchens however, get's on my nerves.

I'm with you on that one.

A lot of Atheists say he's an idiot and that his book "the God delusion" should be burnt. But he just wants everyone to be like him and believe what he believes. What if God DOES exist, then he's doomed.