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.

 

The blowhole

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
It's quite obvious you don't grasp the fine tuning argument. Perhaps you should read about it first...l

Buy yes there are rebuttals like a multiverse.

And again. I wasn't arguing it just your and others lack of its understanding of the argument in teleogical, or the fact it has been observed in cosmology where God is not the following us of the argument.

Yes it is possible that its an observation through the anthropic principle.

The term “fine-tuning” is used to characterize sensitive dependences of facts or properties on the values of certain parameters. Technological devices are paradigmatic examples of fine-tuning. Whether they function as intended depends sensitively on parameters that describe the shape, arrangement, and material properties of their constituents, e.g., the constituents’ conductivity, elasticity and thermal expansion coefficient. Technological devices are the products of actual “fine-tuners”—engineers and manufacturers who designed and built them—but for fine-tuning in the broad sense of this article to obtain, sensitivity with respect to the values of certain parameters is sufficient.


plato.stanford.edu...


Philosophical debates in which “fine-tuning” appears are often about the universe’s fine-tuning for life: according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.


I'm well aware of the argument, but again as I said, there is too much we don't know to assume anything was ever "fine tuned". It just a giant appeal to odds, odds which we can't possibly know. Seriously, don't tell me I've never read it before just because I don't agree with the logic creationists use to defend it. Philosophy is not science, the argument doesn't prove anything, it's a giant appeal to ignorance. That's my point. It's just apologetics, it doesn't hold any weight at all when it comes to the odds of intelligent design vs naturalism.


edit on 12 27 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

However if the isotopes, leptons etc were not what they are we wouldn't have a universe for life. Or one we can understand. We can do the math, change the parameters and see therelated are frameworks in the universe that can't be changed or else things like stars couldn't form.

Yes; I agree that there are certain parameters under which it would seem that matter (or anything we might imagine could be analogous to matter) could not possibly exist. However, there is likely more than one (or many) different sets of parameters in which some sort of imaginable universe that could contain something akin to matter could arise.

Anything that is analogous to "Life" in those universes would be fine tuned to exist in only those universes and not in ours.

Again, life in any of those universes could ask the same question you asked -- i.e., that the physical laws of their universe seems suited to their type of life and them only. Which would be true.

,...And it may be the same case in many other universe that have the right parameters (although parameters wildly different than ours) for something like matter and energy to exist, allowing for some sort of intelligent life that is suited for only each separate set of specific physical law parameters.

The bottom line is this:
There is no reason to believe that ONLY the specific parameters and physical laws of our universe are the only possible set of parameters under which some imaginable (or unimaginable) life could develop.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Sure. But as I said fine tuning isn't creationists. They just use it as a teleological argument.

The observation of fine tuning is quite real and can be found in thousands of scientific papers. Just use Google scholar if you don't believe me. Just because creationists use it doesn't mean that fine tuning belongs to them. It's fascinating that the structure is important. That it isn't or doesn't appear to be totally random.

By the way I could say the big bang is garbage because we barely know anything. It doesn't negate it's possibility from the evidence we do have.

And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists right real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Actually you have no idea if in other universes similar frameworks exist to support life while those without can't support life.

What we do know is what we have observed. Even if with anthropic prejudice.

It's also silly in my opinion to rule out completely that there wasn't a designer (s) or team of scientists who created a simulated design we live in.

It's pretty obvious from all my posts I also accept it's no reality or even in my most likely category.

Maybe some being designed the big bang like a code to perform on its own.

It seems more likely to me than some bearded dude making the earth 6000 years ago for sure.
edit on 27-12-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Sure. But as I said fine tuning isn't creationists. They just use it as a teleological argument.

The observation of fine tuning is quite real and can be found in thousands of scientific papers. Just use Google scholar if you don't believe me. Just because creationists use it doesn't mean that fine tuning belongs to them. It's fascinating that the structure is important. That it isn't or doesn't appear to be totally random.


Yes, that was my point, people bring up the fine tuning argument as if it's evidence for god or design. It's not.

I know what fine tuning is. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the universe arose naturally or not because there is a such a huge gap in our knowledge of how universes form. We don't have any observations of this, we just know what the constants of the universe measure and use math theory to analyze the potential odds.


By the way I could say the big bang is garbage because we barely know anything. It doesn't negate it's possibility from the evidence we do have.


Yes but if you used the big bang as an argument for design or for naturalism, it would be illogical.


And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists right real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.


Yep, that's my point. It is dismissed when it is used as an argument for ID. Yes that use of it is garbage because we don't have nearly enough information about what causes all of the natural forces in the universe or what the actual odds are for a force being tweaked or fine tuned for life. I'm not saying it doesn't exist.
edit on 12 27 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier


And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists right real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.


The fine tuning that exists does exist because the laws of nature are emergent to form the complex universe around us.

For example, if the strong nuclear force (one of the four fundamental forces of physics) was stronger or weaker by just a miniscule amount, then the atominc nuclei as we know it would not be able to exist. HOWEVER, this assumes all ofther forces would be the same. It also assumes that no other force (one that our physics cannot even comprehend, because our physics is based on the laws of our universe) that could allow some strange sort of thing that is loosely analogous to an atomic nuclei.

If we are talking about four forces that are totally foreign to our ability to imagine (heck, maybe only three forces, or maybe more than four) in another universe, then it is possible for that totally foreign universe to have some structure to it (some structure that our physics is unable to describe) that alows for some wildly unimaginable kind of life there from wondering if their universe is fine tuned.

You can say that I shouldn't be assuming that other wildy different forces of physics (totally different than the four fundamental forces in our universe) can even exist in these unimaginably foreign universes -- but I'm not really assuming that they do exist as much as I am NOT assuming that they cannot exist.

The four fundamental forces and their values are only fundamental to our universe. Change the universe and you may change what "fundamental forces" even means.


edit on 27/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs
And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists [write] real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.

To some people it matters who's using a word or terminology, when philosophical naturalists do it there's usually no objection from these people (just like Stephen Hawking entitling his book "The Grand Design" when it's about the universe, as long as the reader is nicely distracted from the rational conclusion by induction and the proper use of language that a "design" requires at least 1 designer and the process of designing which requires a specific type of intelligence and technological advancement that corresponds with the design in question):

edit on 28-12-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Again you assume that modelling hasn't been done changing those forces and the fabric...I infant linked such studies earlier.

Could you describe what a universe without suns could be like....and how that would create life?

First off what is life and can you create a universe without stars to create the definition of life?


Again I understand the anthropic principle.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

So in your opinion there is zero chance the universe was designed and there is no evidence to consider it's a possibility?


Just to throw it out there. If humans were killed by some disease and our genetic modifications were left would a newly evolved intelligent species also assume there was no designing and it was completely natural?
edit on 28-12-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs
And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists [write] real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.

To some people it matters who's using a word or terminology, when philosophical naturalists do it there's usually no objection from these people (just like Stephen Hawking entitling his book "The Grand Design" when it's about the universe, as long as the reader is nicely distracted from the rational conclusion by induction and the proper use of language that a "design" requires at least 1 designer and the process of designing which requires a specific type of intelligence and technological advancement that corresponds with the design in question):


It's a bit funny how you down others for "terminology" and then do the same exact thing by misrepresenting what Hawking means by design.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
So in your opinion there is zero chance the universe was designed and there is no evidence to consider it's a possibility?


Nope. I'm not sure how my argument goes from not accepting fine tuning as an argument for design, to saying there is ZERO chance of it. I believe that design is one possibility among many. There is no evidence to support it based on our current understanding of the universe, however. That can change as science learns more. Almost anything is possible in the grand scheme of things. It's still something that we very much do not know the answer to.


Just to throw it out there. If humans were killed by some disease and our genetic modifications were left would a newly evolved intelligent species also assume there was no designing and it was completely natural?


That is a loaded question. I have no idea, it depends on the type of society they have and whether or not they have so many religious people. Logic doesn't always factor in to those things.
edit on 12 28 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Well that is fine.

I think the argument is for people who use the teleological argument for god (who may or may not be creationist) are saying the info we have, however limited points towards something pushing a design..now of coarse there are reasons it apears that way one being we are anthropicentrist but when physicist have looked at the math they have wondered why it appears that way. Cosmology in general requires philosophy because we don't have all the info. Just as a bosonic theory only has some of the information.

Again never said it was all physicists or the only way to observe such a thing. Just it makes a more compelling argument for a designer than the bible or the vedas when taken literally..



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Well, I can agree with that for the most part. ANYTHING makes a better argument than the bible, but I don't actually see any evidence of design out there. People appeal to things they don't really understand like cell complexity or universal constants but there is too much we don't know to say that anything indicates design or not. It's pretty much all speculation, and there's nothing wrong with speculating about unknowns, but when people use fine turning to suggest design or to say the teleological argument is true, then there are obvious logical problems with that. It's like saying the big bang proves naturalism. It may seem that way to some of us, but as far as actual reasonable logical arguments, it doesn't work.


edit on 12 29 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Sure. We probaby agree more than don't. I just find the fact we can alter DNA and make goats that spin silk interesting in terms of thinking if another being could have done so visiting the planet as a thought not a serious one like biblical folks.

Also physicists have stated we could make solar systems in the future with base elements. I listen to a lot of Sam Harris pod casts and he has many cutting edge modern scientists on the show.

If that is possible. It's possible we also live in a design.

That is as far as I take it. I don't name my kids after the idea or anything.



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Well not anything
Consider science and the assumption that a Big Bang, with no evidence, other than what we see today, no other big bangs, no login, no sense or valid reason
Abiogenesis, an undetermined amount of space dirt and space water and maybe something else just made life from nothing

And you want me to believe that

Your argument is so pathetic it beggars belief, only an atheist with no other option would accept that as science

But hey, it's your belief



posted on Dec, 31 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes, I agree that it's possible. I do think about the idea of simulation, but that, also, has many flaws. I'm open minded.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Nice strawman. Carry on, sir.



posted on Jan, 1 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You believe in your fairys, me mine
Just stop pretending it's science



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: luthier
I don't actually see any evidence of design out there.


The trees consume CO2 and emit O2 which we breathe in and subsequently emit CO2. We eat food from plants and plants survive off the decomposed waste products of us eating them. Planet earth is in a perfect goldilocks zone that allows water - the main physical constituent of all life - to exhibit all 3 phases and rain down sustenance on the planet. Consider the planetary orbits which have not strayed from their course over recorded history. This huge cosmic clock is supposedly whirling around at unfathomable speeds, yet the night's sky remains constant and predictable to us observers below to allow us to tell the times.

Even the worms and rocks have their purpose... How much more would humans have purpose? Our high degree of encephalization indicates we are something very important in this universe - made to resemble the Creator. Consider how the human body has by far the most potential to create things among all animals on the planet.



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Coop, none of that is testable evidence, it's emotional appeals to ignorance. Nothing about any of that is perfect. Venus and Mars are also in the Goldilocks zone of the sun, but as we know, atmosphere is a bigger indicator of climate than just distance from the sun. There are scientific explanations for everything you just said. What's the point of guessing about it in hindsight of what you already believe to be true? You are just cherry picking things and forcing them to fit your worldview, instead of following the evidence like science does.

I've said it a million times, I don't care if you choose to believe in god or not, just stop the constant irrational illogical attacks on science and knowledge.
edit on 1 2 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You can test fine tuning. They have modeled it in multiverse simulations.




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join