A fine tuned universe.

[nihilanth]

Without the laws of physics already in place before the universes creation, the universe could not have existed at all.



I propose that the universe was definately created, therefore something great had to have created it.

So I ask you, why is gravity so finely tuned?

[Davedave]

Finely tuned to what?

[Omen]

Without the laws of physics already in place before the universes creation, the universe could not have existed at all.

Without water an ocean could not exist.  Nothing about the statement offers to explain, address, or even support the notion that there was a 'creator' or 'designer without first presupposing there be one based on a circular fallacy.

I propose that the universe was definately created,

How? Why?

therefore something great had to have created it.

How? Why?

So I ask you, why is gravity so finely tuned?

How do you know it was fine tuned?

Fined tuned for what?

[nihilanth]

If the gravitational constant was not the way it is, if it were just a little stronger, or a little weaker, the universe could not exist, nor could life exist.

[Davedave]

Evidence?

[Freak]

Just recently I was reading that the stability of the universe is actually not as fine tuned as one might think. Apparently something like 25% of all possible constant values would end up with a universe with objects similar to stars. Therefore, your premise is incorrect, and your argument that the universe needed to be created specious.

[Omen]

If the gravitational constant was not the way it is, if it were just a little stronger, or a little weaker, the universe could not exist, nor could life exist.

Ok.. but as I explained this has nothing to do with demonstrating it was 'tuned' or what it was 'tuned for'.

To quote myself:
Without water an ocean could not exist.  Nothing about the statement offers to explain, address, or even support the notion that there was a 'creator' or 'designer without first presupposing there be one based on a circular fallacy.

[CosmicScherzo]

If the gravitational constant was not the way it is, if it were just a little stronger, or a little weaker, the universe could not exist, nor could life exist.

Well, it wouldn't look exactly the way it does now, anyway.  Why would it not exist at all?

[nihilanth]

Evidence?

All around you DaveDave. The gravational constant of the universe.

[Davedave]

I've never seen a universe fail to exist because it had a different gravitational constant.  Can you show me such a thing?

[nihilanth]

I've never seen a universe fail to exist because it had a different gravitational constant.  Can you show me such a thing?

Does common sense elude you?

[Davedave]

I simply asked if you had evidence.  You could have just admitted that you don't.  It's okay to admit you don't have evidence to support your claims.  What's wrong is to pretend you have evidence, to imagine yourself in possession of evidence that you don't really have.

[Omen]

I've never seen a universe fail to exist because it had a different gravitational constant.  Can you show me such a thing?

Does common sense elude you?

Do digital representations, projected upon a monitor or displayed by a LCD, of text that make up questions on a public discussion form escape the light sensitive cells on the back of your eyeballs?  Is it prevented from travelling down the optic nerve or is it simply not processed in the brain?

Myself:

How do you know it was fine tuned?

Fined tuned for what?

Dave:

Finely tuned to what?

Dave again:

Evidence?

Cosmic:

Well, it wouldn't look exactly the way it does now, anyway.  Why would it not exist at all?

Dave for the third strike:

I've never seen a universe fail to exist because it had a different gravitational constant.  Can you show me such a thing?

Does asking someone if their common sense elude them actually create a positive response or simply serves to undermine discussion?

[nihilanth]

I simply asked if you had evidence.  You could have just admitted that you don't.  It's okay to admit you don't have evidence to support your claims.  What's wrong is to pretend you have evidence, to imagine yourself in possession of evidence that you don't really have.

Well, since I cannot change the gravitational constant of the universe, it would be quite impossible, but most physicists think so as well.

The universe does appear to be in a constant gravitational balance however.

[nihilanth]

I've never seen a universe fail to exist because it had a different gravitational constant.  Can you show me such a thing?

Does common sense elude you?

Do digital representations, projected upon a monitor or displayed by a LCD, of text that make up questions on a public discussion form escape the light sensitive cells on the back of your eyeballs?  Is it prevented from travelling down the optic nerve or is it simply not processed in the brain?

Myself:

How do you know it was fine tuned?

Fined tuned for what?

Dave:

Finely tuned to what?

Dave again:

Evidence?

Cosmic:

Well, it wouldn't look exactly the way it does now, anyway.  Why would it not exist at all?

Dave for the third strike:

I've never seen a universe fail to exist because it had a different gravitational constant.  Can you show me such a thing?

Does asking someone if their common sense elude them actually create a positive response or simply serves to undermine discussion?

Maybe you should only answer posts when someone is directly addressing you Omen. We both know that I avoid conversation with you. Let's keep it that way.

[CosmicScherzo]

The universe does appear to be in a constant gravitational balance however.

What do you mean by gravitational balance?

Maybe you should only answer posts when someone is directly addressing you Omen.

In that case, would you answer the post in which I asked you why you believe the universe would cease to exist if the gravitational constant were different?

[Omen]

Maybe you should only answer posts when someone is directly addressing you Omen.  We both know that I avoid conversation with you. Let's keep it that way.[/

You are actively participating in a public forum, where your posts and the topics you are making can be addressed by anyone in virtually any manner.  Simply because you want to arbitrarily ignore people is irrelevant.  You can expect to be held and will be held accountable for what you say to others by your peers, including myself.

Now, several people have purposefully directed the same question to the same problem.  "Fine tuned" presents a premise that is not supported simply because you state because X is true, Y can exist.  Nothing about that statement implies that X was 'tuned' and infact we would not be able to tell the difference between it having arrived to that situation simply at random or by 'intent'.  Nothing about that statement implies that it was fine tuned for the current state of existence and not the current state of existence fine tuned for it.  Hence, the people asking you for 'evidence' that it was tuned at all.

To draw out a simple analogy: A nomadic tribe of humans settle in a river valley and eventually develop that settlement into a city.

1. Was the river 'fine tuned' to the humans or were the humans 'fine tuned' to the river?

[Davedave]

...but most physicists think so as well.

I never realized these things were voted upon.  By the way, supporting one claim with an equally unsupported claim is like telling me that you know that talking dogs exist because a talking cat told you so.  You have a poll of physicists worldwide?  Please link to it.

The interesting part is how you say you can't change the gravitational constant.  I have a question.  How do you know it could be different?

[nihilanth]

The universe does appear to be in a constant gravitational balance however.

What do you mean by gravitational balance?

Maybe you should only answer posts when someone is directly addressing you Omen.

In that case, would you answer the post in which I asked you why you believe the universe would cease to exist if the gravitational constant were different?

The universe might in a certain form, but life as we know it, and humans in general would probably not. The universe had to be balanced in such a way that earth formed as it is now and that we and all life as we know it.... (no proof of life on other planets in wich Mars was reciently proven to have never have produced life)...... exists.

I believe that life is a miracle, while most of the members here obviously do not.

[Ambassador Pony]

This thread is hillarious.

bm

[velkyn]

This thread is hillarious.

bm

yep, let's pop some corn while we watch.  I'm of the opinion that like the tigers in Lil Black Sambo, Nih will run in circles until he turns into a pool of butter trying to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Black_Sambo)

[nihilanth]

Maybe you should only answer posts when someone is directly addressing you Omen.  We both know that I avoid conversation with you. Let's keep it that way.[/

You are actively participating in a public forum, where your posts and the topics you are making can be addressed by anyone in virtually any manner.  Simply because you want to arbitrarily ignore people is irrelevant.  You can expect to be held and will be held accountable for what you say to others by your peers, including myself.

Now, several people have purposefully directed the same question to the same problem.  "Fine tuned" presents a premise that is not supported simply because you state because X is true, Y can exist.  Nothing about that statement implies that X was 'tuned' and infact we would not be able to tell the difference between it having arrived to that situation simply at random or by 'intent'.  Nothing about that statement implies that it was fine tuned for the current state of existence and not the current state of existence fine tuned for it.  Hence, the people asking you for 'evidence' that it was tuned at all.

To draw out a simple analogy: A nomadic tribe of humans settle in a river valley and eventually develop that settlement into a city.

1. Was the river 'fine tuned' to the humans or were the humans 'fine tuned' to the river?

I am not responding to you Omen. Enough said.

[CosmicScherzo]

The universe might in a certain form, but life as we know it, and humans in general would probably not. The universe had to be balanced in such a way that earth formed as it is now and that we and all life as we know it....exists.

You're right.  Life as we know it wouldn't exist. But what's wrong with the idea of life as we don't know it?  Let's say all the unlikely factors that would give me red hair and a mole on my right shoulder fall into place.  If this balance were tilted in another direction, I might have brown hair and a mole on my left shoulder.  No big deal.  Nothing in this suggests I wouldn't exist except for in my particular current state.

(no proof of life on other planets in wich Mars was reciently proven to have never have produced life)

Really?  How was that proven?

[bahramthered]

I watch the sceince channel, read ever good magaizine I can find and I have never heard of mars being proven not to have life. Last I heard about mars was that they had found actual ice, which means water, and is supportive of life.

Oh I did hear the rover found a toxic substance on mars but it in no way disproves life ever existed on mars, since it is a big planet.


On the whole fine tuned universe; This is the same old creationist drivel. The Goldilocks paradox has never been proved because we've never had the opperunity to experiment with another universe to prove life can or can't exist with different values. Computer programs have shown a lot but they don't really prove anything.

Personnely I keep looking at the other side of the question. Did Our Life evolve because the universe was suited to it or did Our kind of life (which might very well not be the only option) evlove in a universe suited for it.

And on the ridculous gravity claim, If gravity was different yes your right humans wouldn't exist. Our bodies wouldn't have evloved to suit this enviroment. But that dosn't mean something wouldn't have evloved in our place. We could play a guessing game on what form life would have taken but I doubt you'll care.

If I had more time I'd explain more, but I got to go to work.

[Omen]

I am not responding to you Omen. Enough said.

You can choose to not respond to me all you want, we're just trying to get you to respond to 'anything' that has to do with your original claim.  As in evidence, logical support of ones own claim, and having the credibility to not insult others because you cannot provide for what you claim or what they ask far.

[Luthekar]

Without the laws of physics already in place before the universes creation, the universe could not have existed at all.



I propose that the universe was definately created, therefore something great had to have created it.

So I ask you, why is gravity so finely tuned?

Nothing is "finely tuned." It's such a stupid assertion.
What you're boiling it down to is If things were different, then they would be different.

Does saying it's "finely tuned" prove God? No.
Is it even considered evidence for a God? No.

[Cyberia]

Evidence?

There are about 12 fundamental constants of the universe that, were they diferent even by a TINY fraction of their current value, would lead to a universe fundamentally different from the one we inhabit.  It is assumed (probably correctly), that most, if not all, of other configurations of these constants would NOT allow life as we know it to form.

It's actually the BEST argument for a designed universe.

However, the counter-argument merely flips it around.  If those constants HAD been different, you would not be here to question your fortune.  It's like asking what are the odds that you would win a lottery, after you had already won.  In that case the odds AREN'T 1:40 million.  The odds, are 1:1.  You DID win.

[Omen]

Evidence?

There are about 12 fundamental constants of the universe that, were they diferent even by a TINY fraction of their current value, would lead to a universe fundamentally different from the one we inhabit.  It is assumed (probably correctly), that most, if not all, of other configurations of these constants would NOT allow life as we know it to form.

Nothing about that paragraph explains why you believe it to be tuned ( as in designed ), why you assume it to be 'tuned' ( as in designed ), or how it works to explaining your next claim.  Not to mention why you presume life ( as we know it ) is somehow an important variable to having existed or not.  Infact, you cannot do so with making several hidden presumptions entirely arbitrarily and without explanation.

It's actually the BEST argument for a designed universe.

How?  "Tuning" is stated upon a circular premise and is not explained in the 'evidence' cited.  You have to presume its tuned before you begin and that violates the argument itself.  You could no more tell the difference of whether or not we are tuned for it or it is tuned for us, muchless if it is tuned for something completely disconnected from us - such as black holes.

The universe is a fantastic machine at creating black holes, it is fine tuned for black holes.  See what happens when I first presume design/tuning, then arbitrarily presume what its designed for.

Hidden Premise 1. The universe is 'tuned' ( as in designed ) by a god.
Hidden Premise 2. Life existing ( as we know it ) = proof of god
Premise 3. The universe exists
Premise 4. Life exists ( as we know it )
Conclusion 5. There is a god.

How did you know premise 1 or 2? You don't, you offer no explanation.

How do premise 3 and 4 support 1 or 2? They dont.  No explanation is added other then the original hidden premises.

Does it answer the question of evidence? No.

Is the conclusion circular? Obviously.

However, the counter-argument merely flips it around.  If those constants HAD been different, you would not be here to question your fortune.  It's like asking what are the odds that you would win a lottery, after you had already won.  In that case the odds AREN'T 1:40 million.  The odds, are 1:1.  You DID win.

You do not even need to go that far, the original argument is a logical fallacy.

[Davedave]

There are about 12 fundamental constants of the universe that, were they diferent even by a TINY fraction of their current value, would lead to a universe fundamentally different from the one we inhabit.

This is a red herring.  Cyberia, there is a constant called "pi".  Its value is extremely precise and if it were different, the universe would be unimaginably different.  But, there's no evidence that it could possibly BE different.  The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is what it is.  So a discussion like that is putting the cart before the horse.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the so-called fundamental constants even could be different, any more than the ration of the circumference of a circle and its diameter could ever be anything other than our current known value for pi.

The real issue here is the term "constant".  If you can change it, then it's... NOT a constant.  It's a "variable".  Variables are different than constants.  Naturally, if you arbitrarily decide to start changing constants into variables, things are going to start being different.  Is that insightful?  Is that clever?  Does that mean anything?  I don't think so.  That's like taking a cat, pointing out how alive it is, then holding it under water for ten minutes until it drowns, then taking it out and pointing to how dead it is, and saying, "Look how different it is."  Well, DUH!!!  You mean when you change something, things change?  If that's the best argument for a designed universe, I'm fine with that, because that's a shithouse argument. 

It is assumed (probably correctly), that most, if not all, of other configurations of these constants would NOT allow life as we know it to form.

What do you mean "as we know it"?  Again, things would change if we changed things?  Things would be different if things were different?  Next you'll be telling me that when I chop my hand off with a big knife, I'll be in two pieces.

You know, when I go to the store, I like to buy a plastic tub of a product named "Mixed Nuts".  I take my mixed nuts home and I eat them.  I can eat a handful of nuts from the tub and what is left is still mixed nuts.  I can keep doing that and keep doing that, but at some point at the very bottom, there may only be peanuts left.  Even though that last handful of mixed nuts I removed looked the same as the first one, now, something has changed, and the container no longer contains "Mixed Nuts".  Now, there are only peanuts.  Eventually, there may only be one peanut on the bottom.  That is not "mixed nuts".  That's a peanut.  Even though there is product left, it's not the same product as there was before.  A peanut by itself can never be "mixed nuts".  Is that an amazing observation of some kind?  Is that a deep, earthmoving philosophical moment?  No.  It's just the thing that happens when things change.  Something changes, things become different.  It's not really very amazing at all.