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: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.



Not in the bible lmao!!! God created the stars on day 4 (according to the bible) after the earth and I think the fishes.... Way to ignore the biblical account where convienient....I could go on all day about the false assumptions made by Bronze Age goat herders, but instead I'll just agree with you.


YOur right!!! If you close one eye and squint with the other. While standing on your head, while drunk. Your right!! The bible lines up perfectly!!!!


Lol why would you admit to yourself the bible has been edited and/or changed and choose to believe the most outlandish parts!!!




posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinyDAWK
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....



In his/her head!



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?


Looking at "before there was light" is not looking at the present.
Try arguing with intelligent responses to what was posted.

Science shows that a handful of mathematical constants proves an intelligent manipulation.
This does not show a personal creator.
The part you are emotionally charged to be against comes much later, after the stars burst forth heavy elements and a specific solar system forms after billions of years where evidence of millions of years of life existed afterwards, then another intervention occurs, intelligent life. Your hate starts and continues there. The science proves the previous fine tuning. Therefore it is not a leap of faith for there to be another moment of fine tuning as concerns intelligent life, us.
edit on 24-3-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.



Not in the bible lmao!!! God created the stars on day 4 (according to the bible) after the earth and I think the fishes.... Way to ignore the biblical account where convienient....I could go on all day about the false assumptions made by Bronze Age goat herders, but instead I'll just agree with you.


YOur right!!! If you close one eye and squint with the other. While standing on your head, while drunk. Your right!! The bible lines up perfectly!!!!


Lol why would you admit to yourself the bible has been edited and/or changed and choose to believe the most outlandish parts!!!


The concept of something before "let there be light" is phenomenal, and theorized in the big bang theory. That is when these constants were set.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?


Looking at "before there was light" is not looking at the present.
Try arguing with intelligent responses to what was posted.


It would have to be an intelligent post to begin with for me to respond intelligently. Or rather, you made no attempt to understand my point.


Science shows that a handful of mathematical constants proves an intelligent manipulation.
This does not show a personal creator.
The part you are emotionally charged to be against comes much later, after the stars burst forth heavy elements and a specific solar system forms after billions of years where evidence of millions of years of life existed afterwards, then another intervention occurs, intelligent life. Your hate starts and continues there. The science proves the previous fine tuning. Therefore it is not a leap of faith for there to be another moment of fine tuning as concerns intelligent life, us.


Emotionally charged? Hate? Huh? There are no emotions here, just you trying to start with the present and fit the past into one narrow scope when what happened is that the past occurred first with the present we live in being one of many many different possibilities. To look back and say fine tuning because of complexity just shows a flaw in your perspective.

Stop pretending humans are special. Nothing about our species is special. Once you do that, then it becomes a lot easier to see things as they should be instead of through some magical god lens.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?


Looking at "before there was light" is not looking at the present.
Try arguing with intelligent responses to what was posted.

Science shows that a handful of mathematical constants proves an intelligent manipulation.
This does not show a personal creator.
The part you are emotionally charged to be against comes much later, after the stars burst forth heavy elements and a specific solar system forms after billions of years where evidence of millions of years of life existed afterwards, then another intervention occurs, intelligent life. Your hate starts and continues there. The science proves the previous fine tuning. Therefore it is not a leap of faith for there to be another moment of fine tuning as concerns intelligent life, us.


If science proves fine tuning, how come 85% of all Nobel winners in math and science are atheists????

These are the same people who have PROVED the universe was intelligently designed?


Your spouting creationist type garbage. It's nothing new nor is it the logical conclustion physics leads to.

There is zero the bible got right. Your omitting the parts that you don't like and latching onto a few lines that no christian interpreted that way before science confirmed the Big Bang. Moses, Noah and Jesus all thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe (except they had no concept of space stars or planets). You could find the same truths in Harry potter if you cut out all but the one line you like.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?


Looking at "before there was light" is not looking at the present.
Try arguing with intelligent responses to what was posted.


It would have to be an intelligent post to begin with for me to respond intelligently. Or rather, you made no attempt to understand my point.


Science shows that a handful of mathematical constants proves an intelligent manipulation.
This does not show a personal creator.
The part you are emotionally charged to be against comes much later, after the stars burst forth heavy elements and a specific solar system forms after billions of years where evidence of millions of years of life existed afterwards, then another intervention occurs, intelligent life. Your hate starts and continues there. The science proves the previous fine tuning. Therefore it is not a leap of faith for there to be another moment of fine tuning as concerns intelligent life, us.


Emotionally charged? Hate? Huh? There are no emotions here, just you trying to start with the present and fit the past into one narrow scope when what happened is that the past occurred first with the present we live in being one of many many different possibilities. To look back and say fine tuning because of complexity just shows a flaw in your perspective.

Stop pretending humans are special. Nothing about our species is special. Once you do that, then it becomes a lot easier to see things as they should be instead of through some magical god lens.


The emotion is strong in this one.

What part of chronological order do you not understand? Where did I start from the present? I started from before there was light, when these constants were set.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.



Not in the bible lmao!!! God created the stars on day 4 (according to the bible) after the earth and I think the fishes.... Way to ignore the biblical account where convienient....I could go on all day about the false assumptions made by Bronze Age goat herders, but instead I'll just agree with you.


YOur right!!! If you close one eye and squint with the other. While standing on your head, while drunk. Your right!! The bible lines up perfectly!!!!


Lol why would you admit to yourself the bible has been edited and/or changed and choose to believe the most outlandish parts!!!


The concept of something before "let there be light" is phenomenal, and theorized in the big bang theory. That is when these constants were set.


What?? Because the bible says god was there before the universe and science says there is probubally a multiverse with countless universes means what?


That early biblical writers knew the concept of before? Exactly like the egyptions, Buddhists , native Americans all had a concept of before the world was created.


Huh? Do you even make sense to yourself or do you just ignore logic to feel all warm and fuzzy about a magic guy who secretly controles everything?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?


Looking at "before there was light" is not looking at the present.
Try arguing with intelligent responses to what was posted.


It would have to be an intelligent post to begin with for me to respond intelligently. Or rather, you made no attempt to understand my point.


Science shows that a handful of mathematical constants proves an intelligent manipulation.
This does not show a personal creator.
The part you are emotionally charged to be against comes much later, after the stars burst forth heavy elements and a specific solar system forms after billions of years where evidence of millions of years of life existed afterwards, then another intervention occurs, intelligent life. Your hate starts and continues there. The science proves the previous fine tuning. Therefore it is not a leap of faith for there to be another moment of fine tuning as concerns intelligent life, us.


Emotionally charged? Hate? Huh? There are no emotions here, just you trying to start with the present and fit the past into one narrow scope when what happened is that the past occurred first with the present we live in being one of many many different possibilities. To look back and say fine tuning because of complexity just shows a flaw in your perspective.

Stop pretending humans are special. Nothing about our species is special. Once you do that, then it becomes a lot easier to see things as they should be instead of through some magical god lens.


The emotion is strong in this one.

What part of chronological order do you not understand? Where did I start from the present? I started from before there was light, when these constants were set.


Easy when you pretend that since our present form fits the planet. The planet must have been made for is. Instead of us evolving to fit the planet... As is proven by science and medicine....



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The emotion is strong in this one.


*eyeroll* Whatever. This is clearly inflammatory rhetoric to make me emotional if I am not already. Just stick to the topic.


What part of chronological order do you not understand? Where did I start from the present? I started from before there was light, when these constants were set.


Chronological order is a narrow view point to look at things. The present is the totality of all possible choices. Only after the choices are made can you call it the past. When the universe first started forming the constants that would go on to become the 4 forces of physics could have been anything. If they were anything else there is no argument that exists that says a universe of some sort couldn't form from those constants.

Naturally it wouldn't look anything like our current universe, but nothing says that our universe is anything special. Humans certainly aren't special. Our planet we live on isn't special. Our sun isn't special. Our galaxy isn't special. Our galactic cluster isn't special. So saying that our universe is special is just a blind leap of faith that also contradicts other norms.

I can't say that the universe doesn't have a creator, but I can say that it is unlikely. Or at least looks and behaves like nothing we on Earth have ever imagined.
edit on 24-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.



Not in the bible lmao!!! God created the stars on day 4 (according to the bible) after the earth and I think the fishes.... Way to ignore the biblical account where convienient....I could go on all day about the false assumptions made by Bronze Age goat herders, but instead I'll just agree with you.


YOur right!!! If you close one eye and squint with the other. While standing on your head, while drunk. Your right!! The bible lines up perfectly!!!!


Lol why would you admit to yourself the bible has been edited and/or changed and choose to believe the most outlandish parts!!!


The concept of something before "let there be light" is phenomenal, and theorized in the big bang theory. That is when these constants were set.


What?? Because the bible says god was there before the universe and science says there is probubally a multiverse with countless universes means what?


That early biblical writers knew the concept of before? Exactly like the egyptions, Buddhists , native Americans all had a concept of before the world was created.


Huh? Do you even make sense to yourself or do you just ignore logic to feel all warm and fuzzy about a magic guy who secretly controles everything?


The science does not show there is a magic man that personally controls every detail as it happens. It shows the conditions were set by a manipulation of the constants. When viewed in this light, pun intended, the manipulator shows supreme power without ever having to be overburdened with things moment to moment afterwards. Time did not even exist when the big bang went off so logically the manipulator would not be constrained by time and moments in time by constantly requiring manipulation.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?


Looking at "before there was light" is not looking at the present.
Try arguing with intelligent responses to what was posted.


It would have to be an intelligent post to begin with for me to respond intelligently. Or rather, you made no attempt to understand my point.


Science shows that a handful of mathematical constants proves an intelligent manipulation.
This does not show a personal creator.
The part you are emotionally charged to be against comes much later, after the stars burst forth heavy elements and a specific solar system forms after billions of years where evidence of millions of years of life existed afterwards, then another intervention occurs, intelligent life. Your hate starts and continues there. The science proves the previous fine tuning. Therefore it is not a leap of faith for there to be another moment of fine tuning as concerns intelligent life, us.


Emotionally charged? Hate? Huh? There are no emotions here, just you trying to start with the present and fit the past into one narrow scope when what happened is that the past occurred first with the present we live in being one of many many different possibilities. To look back and say fine tuning because of complexity just shows a flaw in your perspective.

Stop pretending humans are special. Nothing about our species is special. Once you do that, then it becomes a lot easier to see things as they should be instead of through some magical god lens.


The emotion is strong in this one.

What part of chronological order do you not understand? Where did I start from the present? I started from before there was light, when these constants were set.


Easy when you pretend that since our present form fits the planet. The planet must have been made for is. Instead of us evolving to fit the planet... As is proven by science and medicine....


Whether we evolved is inconsequential. The constants were set to allow the evolving to occur.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I my opinion it would certainly be weird if the numbers didn't describe our experience.
Numbers are just crude estimates used to describe reality for utilitarian purposes and should not be confused with reality itself. No matter how large/small numbers are used it will never be enough to describe tangible reality, they are just abstractions of reality, they are fascinating distractions though.

One thing I though was interesting in video was that the point of all separate observers. Just because we experience a separate ego experience doesn't necessarily rule out that all observers together form a single organism that experience the total universe from all points of views at the same time and together describe the universe and reality perfectly as they are.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I think you have misread science. It uses maths as a language to express thought in numbers. One maths formula might prove that something is so, but that doesn't negate the possibility that another mathematical model can prove that same something is not so. So one day Einsteins theories might give way to string theory, and string theory to another theory. For all we know science might never be able to find the ultimate truth. Science might be operating within a mirage (holographic universe) with no access to the object that projects that mirage.

This is why people in east decided that the only way to find real truth was to explore beyond our senses, within ourselves (meditation). Science has a way to catch up me thinks, but you'd fight me on that, tooth and nail. You cannot prove I am wrong, and I cannot prove you are wrong.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot







He is apparently smart enough to create the entire universe, but he couldn't fathom the concept of a straight line?


There's no such thing as a straight line.

No line is truly straight, and even if you could make one, and attempted to continue it on a galactic level it, wouldn't stay "Straight".

Even light bends, my friend.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   


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.
a reply to: DeadFoot

Why do you think that what man creates is not natural?

Isn't he from nature?



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33
I watched the entire video, and I know some of it is true,
for example, the mass of the universe; if it was just slightly
more or less than stars would not be able to form.

Two other points: this could be evidence of design,
however, it could be a holographic simulated universe.

Second point, people could say that since we are apparently
living in a universe that supports life, and thereby, stars and
galaxies and the gravitational constant and the speed of light
etc... must be as we see it.

Let me say that again; if the constants weren't what they are,
the universe could not support life, therefore, since we are in
a universe that supports life, than obviously these are the
constants and the universe we see.
We wouldn't see another type of universe since it can't
support life.

According to the multiverse theory, an infinite number
of universes could be in existence, they don't have to be
created by a machine.

If our universe just poofed into existence one day, than,
its logical to conclude that this has happened more than once,
the probably of it happening to support life, against staggering
odds, suggests that there are so many multi-verses that it
became inevitable at a certain point.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I do believe the
universe was designed.

Rebel 5



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06



Evolution is proven.


I understand that some in religion don't take kindly to darmins evolution but he himself was a church goer, not an atheist. If one believes in God then one must also believe that the maths behind his creation was designed to allow life to flourish throughout the universe.



posted on Mar, 24 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dusty1



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.
a reply to: DeadFoot

Why do you think that what man creates is not natural?

Isn't he from nature?


Um, because it is literally defined as such.



nature
[ney-cher]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
2.
the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization.
3.
the elements of the natural world, as mountains, trees, animals, or rivers.

edit on 24-3-2015 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join