It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Evidence That The Universe Was Fine Tuned !

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
Very nice little video, thanks for sharing!

I have held for some years now that the only intellectually honest position a person can hold, in light of what is now known, is that of curious, seeking, open-minded agnosticism with a tendency towards optimism that the establishment of design is a 'good thing' . It should be scientifically embraced, in terms of beginning studies of consciousness in order to work towards an understanding of the interaction between individual awareness, our perceptions of the Universe, and ultimately our ability to establish connection with the clearly careful, 'emotionally involved' infinite 'super-intellect.

Intellectual honesty. Simple but powerful.
. Eventually humans will get to a point where we create an alternate reality so believable we won't know it's fake. The real question is, have we already achieved it and now "living" it? Maybe we're not human at all.....
WV




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   


Except we know unequivocally that graves, swimming pools and lighters are man made. Now provide objective, testable evidence that the universe was designed and objective, testable evidence as to who (or what) the designer is.
a reply to: GetHyped



Graves
Swimming Pools
Lighters

These things we use, started with an idea, and then were engineered.

This is the model.

It is testable and repeatable.

Why do humans do this kind of stuff?


Many people assume that graves, pools and lighters are created by humans, but have never observed it for themselves.


Most people wouldn't come home from work on a Friday night, look at a hole designed for a pool, and argue that an intelligent person was not behind the design and construction.



He may reasonably assume someone designed and worked on the pool.

He might just have to wait til Monday to actually meet the person who built the pool.



A person that may not be creative or understand design or construction, may really believe that stuff just happens.

I see nature as a machine, designed and constructed.

Humans, (who some believe are created in the image of God) create and invent new things, they tamper and tinker, shape and mold.


We understand what "Man Made" is, but it is often based on designs that are found somewhere in nature.

If it takes an intelligent mind to reverse engineer something, I believe that it took and intelligent mind to create it in the first place.




edit on 23-3-2015 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

You really think that a swimming pool is empirical evidence of universal fine tuning and supernatural beings?

Put the lighter fluid down, honey.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   


You really think that a swimming pool is empirical evidence of universal fine tuning and supernatural beings?
a reply to: GetHyped



Well, I guess I do......




posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Science uses statistical inference to make all sought of assumptions from observed data and the finely tuned argument is no different. Statistically the universe shouldn't exist. Too many laws have to be within an inch in strength on a ruler the size of our universe for even stars to form. That is perhaps more amazing than the universe itself.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Einstein didn't like the idea of a personal God which is perhaps the greatest objection to many atheist (man in the sky) . Even many religious people would agree with Einstein's viewpoint.



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

They have estimated Isaac Newton IQ at 190. Your cousin is likely very smart but greats like Newton were in a different league,



posted on Mar, 23 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   



I see nature as a machine, designed and constructed.



Calling nature a machine gives it far too much honor.
edit on 23-3-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: glend
This is not how statistics work.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

Then be a good sheep and stick needles in your eye c



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: TzarChasm

Einstein didn't like the idea of a personal God which is perhaps the greatest objection to many atheist (man in the sky) . Even many religious people would agree with Einstein's viewpoint.


for all practical purposes, that eliminates 90% of conventional theology.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Barcs

Science uses statistical inference to make all sought of assumptions from observed data and the finely tuned argument is no different. Statistically the universe shouldn't exist. Too many laws have to be within an inch in strength on a ruler the size of our universe for even stars to form. That is perhaps more amazing than the universe itself.




Unless there is a vast hyper space where there are universes that didn't form stars and life..... Exactly as predicted in string theory.



The universe in no way shape form or fashion was created for us. It's a billions of light years across and yet we can only survive on the thin candy shell of one 25,000 mile planet. Hell we can't even survive on most of the shell.



Evolution is proven. There are countless examples that prove it. The "blueprint" of every creature on the planet is flawed because it evolved instead of being created. Arteries take the long way around organs instead of the direct route, because they weren't created. It was small changes over generations.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope




I see nature as a machine, designed and constructed.



Calling nature a machine gives it far too much honor.


i fail to see what either nature or machines have to do with honor.

besides, isnt honor another one of those concepts that have no basis in reality? according to some schools of thought anyway.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: dusty1

This argument makes no sense at all.

You are saying that humans act in the likeness of their creator, and that is evidenced by our ability to create, however we create things to operate much more efficiently than this sky person. He is apparently smart enough to create the entire universe, but he couldn't fathom the concept of a straight line?

It's funny because what you're kind of saying is that we know things are created because they are NOT in the natural form, but then try to use that as an example of nature being created. That's a serious logic reversal.
edit on 24-3-2015 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Here's another good video called:
Privileged Species
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1



My BIC lighter proves that fire is intelligent burning!
a reply to: GetHyped


It is intelligent burning.

Someone thought up the idea of a lighter, designed and invented it.



Actually fire is a chemical reaction. Our intelligence might have made it easier for us to utilize it, but it's very much a natural phenomenon and man has utilized it long before lighters. Fire isn't intelligent, we are.

Your pool design argument is flawed as well. This planet is dominated by humans, so logic would state that if a hole was designed, it would have been done by us. You can tell that the hole was created because humans build pools all over the place. There is a direct correlation and point of comparison. With other things, like planets, stars, the moon, etc, they do not look like anything a human can create or have created. There is no point of comparison for us to say, "yes, that was designed". In reality they do not look to be designed without huge leaps in logic. This is way your analogy goes out the door. We have proof that humans create pools, so it's not unreasonable to assume that humans created the hole in question. We DO NOT have humans creating planets or stars, nor do we have evidence of anybody else doing this, so assuming design, is nothing but an assumption, no matter how you try to justify it. It's an emotional response to the complexity of life and our star system.
edit on 24-3-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
Science uses statistical inference to make all sought of assumptions from observed data and the finely tuned argument is no different.


Science follows the EVIDENCE. That is a prerequisite. The fine tuning argument is vastly different, because there is no evidence that anybody or any being ever "fine tuned" anything or is even capable of such a thing. It's pure assumption based on emotion. The universe does not even appear fine tuned when you look at it as a whole, since our planet is the only known one with life thus far. I'm sure there are more, but fine tuned? There's no evidence for it whatsoever.


Statistically the universe shouldn't exist.

Please post the stats.


Too many laws have to be within an inch in strength on a ruler the size of our universe for even stars to form. That is perhaps more amazing than the universe itself.


And you know for a fact that if the laws were slightly different, that a different type of life would absolutely not emerge?

It's all just appeal to emotion. It's people looking up at the stars and thinking, "wow this is amazing". There is no evidence involved whatsoever and you can't even calculate the odds you claimed meant the universe shouldn't exist.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Barcs

Science uses statistical inference to make all sought of assumptions from observed data and the finely tuned argument is no different. Statistically the universe shouldn't exist. Too many laws have to be within an inch in strength on a ruler the size of our universe for even stars to form. That is perhaps more amazing than the universe itself.




Unless there is a vast hyper space where there are universes that didn't form stars and life..... Exactly as predicted in string theory.



The universe in no way shape form or fashion was created for us. It's a billions of light years across and yet we can only survive on the thin candy shell of one 25,000 mile planet. Hell we can't even survive on most of the shell.



Evolution is proven. There are countless examples that prove it. The "blueprint" of every creature on the planet is flawed because it evolved instead of being created. Arteries take the long way around organs instead of the direct route, because they weren't created. It was small changes over generations.


Even if all there is, is "evolved life", it can only exist because a few numbers that are universal constants are fine tuned specifically to allow it.
The weak and strong nuclear forces for example were set in the first nanoseconds of the big bang, before that there were no such forces. Same with gravity. Before there was light. Where else has creation been described about specific events before there was light? Thousands of years before there was science. That concept alone seems impossible to comprehend without modern science to theorize a big bang and all of humanities small understanding steps that led to it. Yet there it was.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You need to stop looking at the present and working back to the past. The present didn't come first, the past did. So start there. If the things that make up the weak and strong force or gravity were different than our universe would have developed differently and in ways that we can't imagine. That is all. Yes, to get the universe WE currently know requires such precise numbers, but who says that our universe is the norm?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Wouldn't that mean that "life" has become fine tuned through evolution to adapt to the environment we are in? i mean like the life that we have come to understand only lives on earth. The universe is actually a very unforgiving, inhospitable place.... as far as we know there are no other planets that can support our life. And if there were, (so far) we can't survive the journey. So please tell me where the "fine tuning" is. p.s. I'm at work so I can not watch the video....




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join