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 Fine Tuned Universe - affirms and confirms the Creator's existence! No?

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
I’ve read many articles regarding this topic and they basically all come to the same conclusions. There are three possible explanations for the "finely tuned" Universe:

1. It is a simulation
2. There are multiple parallel Universes and ours happens to be perfect for the formation of Galaxies and Stars
3. God created it.
OK… maybe one more: All of the above.


1) It's not a simulation but the reality. We have so much scientific evidence that the Universe IS Fine Tuned to support life. Only those who are threatened by this fundamental truth are against it, thus they will stop at nothing to debunk it. Even if it means sacrificing their one ounce of credibility (on the matter).


What's the difference btween reality and a simulation if you are actually living inside the sim?



2) Isn't it interesting that our own universe like you said "happens to be perfect for the formation of Galaxies and Stars" if such multiverse exists? Any idea why is that?


because we wouldn't exist in the multiverses that cannot sustain galaxies and stars.


The only logical explanation is:

3) God created it.

To say otherwise takes more faith and a bending of facts to conform to pre-supposed ideas.


No... there are three logical conclusions which I have enumerated. To say otherwise is a falacy.




posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


As long as you realize you're stating a BELIEF rather than facts, truth, or real knowledge...because for that, you'd require objective evidence as backup, something you don't have


here's another objective evidence:

The intensity of the 2) electromagnetic force in relation to the other three forces, that is:

1) Gravity
3) Strong Nuclear Force
4) Weak Nuclear Force

Consider, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) times that of gravity.

Now add one more ZERO to it, it becomes 10^41 power. Will it make a difference?

Absolutely! In what way?

It will simply make gravity proportionally weaker than 2) electromagnetic force. Resulting in what?

Experts in the field say that


“With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.” -- Dr. Reinhard Breuer


No sunshine means No Life.

On the flip side - what if gravity were stronger, so that it had only 39 zeros (10^39)?

The same expert said:


“With just this tiny adjustment, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.”


Other scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise.

Shorter life expectancy of the sun means that life should have not and would have not continued to exist.

More info here

Question is - can chance or accident alone be able to accomplish such powerful - precise feat?

Like I said - an atheist will say yes.

Thereby proving my point of close mindedness because it takes more faith to believe that there was no organizing or planning or calculating for such precise fine tuning the universe.

Is that what you believe Mr. XYZ?

If yes - then please explain what will happen if you accidentally combine three atoms of oxygen?

tc



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





What's the difference btween reality and a simulation if you are actually living inside the sim?


We do a lot of simulation in my line of work and we always do our simulation based on the real world.

But if you believe that we are "actually living inside the sim" - who is doing the sim?

tc.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





What's the difference btween reality and a simulation if you are actually living inside the sim?


We do a lot of simulation in my line of work and we always do our simulation based on the real world.

But if you believe that we are "actually living inside the sim" - who is doing the sim?

tc.



Please refrain from jumping to conclusions. I did not indicate that I believed one conclusion over any other. I merely offered three logical conclusions, any of which might be accurate.

Are you saying that a simulation cannot be created that does not conform to known realities?

ETA - I understand the faith based beliefs that you bring to the table but I will not address those. I prefer to keep this type of discussion based in logic because that is the essence of your OP; 'a logical conclusion of the fine tuned universe'


edit on 9-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





Are you saying that a simulation cannot be created that does not conform to known realities?


With the exception of some video games most sim are based on the real world. After all why simulate something with no bases?

But again, let's assume for a moment that we're living in a sim - who is behind the sim?

As for:


ETA - I understand the faith based beliefs that you bring to the table but I will not address those. I prefer to keep this type of discussion based in logic because that is the essence of your OP; 'a logical conclusion of the fine tuned universe'


Logically speaking - that's exactly what I'm getting at.

Here's a portion of what I said in the op:

"a flint arrowhead requires a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe doesn't. Why not"?

What's your logical conclusion?


tc.

edit on 9-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: " / of added



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Question is - can chance or accident alone be able to accomplish such powerful - precise feat?

Like I said - an atheist will say yes.

Thereby proving my point of close mindedness because it takes more faith to believe that there was no organizing or planning or calculating for such precise fine tuning the universe.

Is that what you believe Mr. XYZ?


Scientists don't say it all started because of "mere chance" or "an accident"...they say they don't know. You on the other hand marvel at reality, and then simply fill a gap in knowledge with magic (aka god) because it seems you can't live without knowing.

A few thousand years ago people marvelled at fire and attributed that to god too...we now know better. You'd think in the 21st century people would FINALLY apply some logic instead of trying to use the old god of the gaps argument



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Question is - can chance or accident alone be able to accomplish such powerful - precise feat?

Like I said - an atheist will say yes.

Thereby proving my point of close mindedness because it takes more faith to believe that there was no organizing or planning or calculating for such precise fine tuning the universe.

Is that what you believe Mr. XYZ?


Scientists don't say it all started because of "mere chance" or "an accident"...they say they don't know. You on the other hand marvel at reality, and then simply fill a gap in knowledge with magic (aka god) because it seems you can't live without knowing.

A few thousand years ago people marvelled at fire and attributed that to god too...we now know better. You'd think in the 21st century people would FINALLY apply some logic instead of trying to use the old god of the gaps argument


Of course that's what most atheistic scientist believe and say - chance or accidents created the universe. Some will say they don't know because they are either embarrass to admit the obvious or that they don't have the guts to admit the obvious.

Why? because they will be ostracized by their fellow scientists and people like you.

And no it's not "fill in the gaps" to conclude that there's an Intelligent Maker/Creator for the Highly Fine Tuned Universe but it's LOGIC and COMMON Sense.

LOGIC and COMMON Sense - qualities that sadly most atheist lack.

Now back to the 21st century.

Please explain what will happen if you accidentally combine three atoms of oxygen?

tc.


edit on 9-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: commons - common



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





And no it's not "fill in the gaps" to conclude that there's an Intelligent Maker/Creator for the Highly Fine Tuned Universe but it's LOGIC and COMMONS Sense.



Then kindly present this "logic", because all you've done so far is said "xxx is really amazing, and science can't explain it...ergo it's logical to assume god did it", and that's not objective evidence or proof.

Until you present positive objective evidence for the existence of god, all you do is preaching



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Who's behind the SIM? Who can know for sure.

If you'll allow me to break down the discussion: You're saying that because we exist in a fine tuned Universe, it is proof that God exists. However, that is not the only logical conclusion without further revelation. There is no proof, only conjecture.

BTW- I believe the Universe was created... but it cannot be proven. That's why they call it Faith my friend.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Who's behind the SIM? Who can know for sure.

If you'll allow me to break down the discussion: You're saying that because we exist in a fine tuned Universe, it is proof that God exists. However, that is not the only logical conclusion without further revelation. There is no proof, only conjecture.

BTW- I believe the Universe was created... but it cannot be proven. That's why they call it Faith my friend.



Thanks for the frank and honest reply Blarneystoner.

You said it takes Faith to believe that the Universe was created.

But I say it also takes Faith to believe that the Universe was NOT created. In fact it takes more faith to do so. More faith on faith that it becomes blind faith / credulity.

On the other hand it takes careful and honest observation of the things around us to come to a conclusion of the former. It takes like I said - logic and common sense to arrive at the correct and proper conclusion that the universe is a result of Fine Tuning / Intelligent Creation. Logic and common sense based on demonstrated reality. We were given the ability to figure this out so that WE will know. If fact the scriptures encourages us to do just that. Let me please quote it here if you don't mind.

It says:

“For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;” (Romans 1:20)

So let me ask the q again:

"a flint arrowhead requires a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe doesn't.

Logically and common-sensically speaking, why not"?


tc



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Erm... you cannot proove a negative. This is why it's very difficult to discuss God from a strictly logical approach. What you describe is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance. No offense, that's just what it's called.

Personally, I do think the Multiverse theory is valid but still begs the question; 'where did they come from?'


edit on 9-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 





And no it's not "fill in the gaps" to conclude that there's an Intelligent Maker/Creator for the Highly Fine Tuned Universe but it's LOGIC and COMMONS Sense.



Then kindly present this "logic", because all you've done so far is said "xxx is really amazing, and science can't explain it...ergo it's logical to assume god did it", and that's not objective evidence or proof.

Until you present positive objective evidence for the existence of god, all you do is preaching


As long as you realize you're stating a BELIEF rather than facts, truth, or real knowledge...because for that, you'd require objective evidence as backup, something you don't have


preaching?? huh? is that all - running out of fumes there my friend?

if so - is this preaching? here's what I said a couple post ago.

"""""
here's another objective evidence:

The intensity of the 2) electromagnetic force in relation to the other three forces, that is:

1) Gravity
3) Strong Nuclear Force
4) Weak Nuclear Force

Consider, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) times that of gravity.

Now add one more ZERO to it, it becomes 10^41 power. Will it make a difference?

Absolutely! In what way?

It will simply make gravity proportionally weaker than 2) electromagnetic force. Resulting in what?

Experts in the field say that


“With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.” -- Dr. Reinhard Breuer


No sunshine means No Life.

On the flip side - what if gravity were stronger, so that it had only 39 zeros (10^39)?

The same expert said:


“With just this tiny adjustment, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.”


..
Shorter life expectancy of the sun means that life should have not and would have not continued to exist.

More info here

Question is - can chance or accident alone be able to accomplish such powerful - precise feat?

Like I said - an atheist will say yes.

Thereby proving my point of close mindedness because it takes more faith to believe that there was no organizing or planning or calculating for such precise fine tuning the universe.

Is that what you believe Mr. XYZ?

If yes - then please explain what will happen if you accidentally combine three atoms of oxygen?

tc
"""""

BTW - you haven't answered my question yet.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Ok... found a little time to do some searching and it looks like the fine tuning may not be so fine after all.

New Physics? Fundamental Cosmic Constant Now Seems Shifty


Recent observations of distant galaxies suggest that the strength of the electromagnetic force, the so-called fine-structure constant, actually varies throughout the universe. In one direction, the constant seemed to grow larger the farther astronomers looked; in another direction the constant took on smaller values with greater distance.


I suppose nothing is set in stone.....

Faith brother... that's what it boils down to because everything we think we know can be called into question.


edit on 9-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Like I said - since you lack logic and common sense you're not able to go beyond the obvious.

How do I lack logic? Please explain that one. Logic indicates that you base things on objective reality and facts rather than guesswork and that you do not commit logical fallacies. If you could point me to a single logical fallacy that I have made in this or any other thread, you will have a case against my logic, but as of now you do not. Since no objective evidence of design exists, it is logical to not believe in that possibility or at least be agnostic about it. Since the evidence behind science is solid, it is logical to think it is accurate for the most part.


But at least you recognise that the Universe is Finely Tuned - which is part of my premise. Your issue is who fine tuned it. And you can't accept that someone fine tuned it because to do so will contradict your pre-supposed ideas / belief. That is it's impossible for someone to fine tune the universe because chance alone is responsible for it.

You are mixing it up again. I do not accept that somebody fine tuned the laws of the universe, because there is no objective evidence to suggest that ever happened. It doesn't contradict with anything I believe in. I never said it was impossible, just that there isn't evidence. That's where faith steps in. I'm not the one whose mind is firmly closed to any possibility other than god. I just admit that we don't know that answer right now.


But ALL KNOWN scientific facts shows that nothing intelligent can come out from chance but the opposite is true. Intelligence begets intelligence - just like life begets life. These are the fundamental truths that you will never understand.


Again, science doesn't say that if something can't be observed, it automatically does not exist. It just ignores anything that doesn't have evidence behind it when reaching conclusions. Your claim that nothing intelligent (using that word VERY loosely as RNA is not intelligent) can arise naturally is a pure guess on your part. That's like saying, "All the scientific facts say there is no other life besides us in the entire universe". That's what the facts DON'T say; not what they DO say. It is illogical to make absolute statements regarding things we know nothing about.

Not to mention Abiogenesis has been partially replicated in a lab, which is far more evidence for life arising naturally, than there is for a designer.


here's another objective evidence:

The intensity of the 2) electromagnetic force in relation to the other three forces, that is:

1) Gravity
3) Strong Nuclear Force
4) Weak Nuclear Force

Consider, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) times that of gravity.

Now add one more ZERO to it, it becomes 10^41 power. Will it make a difference?

Absolutely! In what way?

It will simply make gravity proportionally weaker than 2) electromagnetic force. Resulting in what?


That is NOT objective evidence for anything to do with design. The universe IS the way it is. We are here. We came from here. We wouldn't exist otherwise. Your assumption based on the balance of the laws and proportions of gravity is not objective. It is opinion. Gravity is based on mass. The value changes. If mass large enough existed the force could be larger than electromagetism, although it's doubtful. But we know the cause of gravity. What you are citing there is a fact of the universe, but doesn't suggest anywhere that design could have occurred. Do you understand where the facts are turning into opinions, now?
edit on 9-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Fine tuned universe ?

I agree. Though almost all of it is fine tuned to be deadly. Even most of the planet we live on is not exactly friendly or healthy for humanity in its "natural state"
Amazingingly the enviroments lifeforms exist in appear to be perfect for them, almost as if they evolved to take advantage of it...oh right, my bad......

No one created a universe tuned for life. Life is tuned to the universe, obvious once you get past "apex of creation" bias.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
Fine tuned universe ?

I agree. Though almost all of it is fine tuned to be deadly. Even most of the planet we live on is not exactly friendly or healthy for humanity in its "natural state"
Amazingingly the enviroments lifeforms exist in appear to be perfect for them, almost as if they evolved to take advantage of it...oh right, my bad......

No one created a universe tuned for life. Life is tuned to the universe, obvious once you get past "apex of creation" bias.


No... you're trolling... you're not familiar with the "fined-tuned-Universe" proposition.

Fine Tuned Universe - Wiki

You should become aquainted with the premise of the argument before jumping in with both feet.


The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Erm... you cannot proove a negative. This is why it's very difficult to discuss God from a strictly logical approach. What you describe is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance. No offense, that's just what it's called.



None taken.

But if you say "you cannot proove a negative" - by whose definition is this based from?

And that's the problem with this definition - is it from an atheistic's POV or from a Creation's POV?

Either way, it doesn't matter to me if the facts and conventional wisdom don't support it.

For instance let me use my illustration in the op again.

A flint arrowhead requires a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe doesn't.

Both facts and conventional wisdom tells me one confirms the other.

That is, if a simple flint arrowhead requires a maker, will not a highly fine-tuned universe require a Creator? Of course.

But if we say yes to the arrowhead, for what logical reason then the finely-tuned universe doesn't?

That is can the finely precise adjusted/calibrated fundamental forces that govern the Universe be a mere product of chance or accidents? And how are these forces being maintained?

What's your take?

As for this finding:




Recent observations of distant galaxies suggest that the strength of the electromagnetic force, the so-called fine-structure constant, actually varies throughout the universe. In one direction, the constant seemed to grow larger the farther astronomers looked; in another direction the constant took on smaller values with greater distance.


Sure they are varying but are they not also compensating each other to restore balance / equilibrium? Otherwise the cosmos will be in chaos - planets and galaxies will slaughter each other. Yet we're not seeing this happening especially in the habitable zone.

In other words these fine-tuned constants are moving along according to the direction of growth or expansion.

That is the electromagnetic force is still 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) not 10^41 or 10^39.

Same goes with the other forces.


tc



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Erm... you cannot proove a negative. This is why it's very difficult to discuss God from a strictly logical approach. What you describe is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument from ignorance. No offense, that's just what it's called.



None taken.

But if you say "you cannot proove a negative" - by whose definition is this based from?

And that's the problem with this definition - is it from an atheistic's POV or from a Creation's POV?

Either way, it doesn't matter to me if the facts and conventional wisdom don't support it.

For instance let me use my illustration in the op again.

A flint arrowhead requires a maker but a highly fine-tuned universe doesn't.

Both facts and conventional wisdom tells me one confirms the other.

That is, if a simple flint arrowhead requires a maker, will not a highly fine-tuned universe require a Creator? Of course.

But if we say yes to the arrowhead, for what logical reason then the finely-tuned universe doesn't?

That is can the finely precise adjusted/calibrated fundamental forces that govern the Universe be a mere product of chance or accidents? And how are these forces being maintained?

What's your take?

As for this finding:




Recent observations of distant galaxies suggest that the strength of the electromagnetic force, the so-called fine-structure constant, actually varies throughout the universe. In one direction, the constant seemed to grow larger the farther astronomers looked; in another direction the constant took on smaller values with greater distance.


Sure they are varying but are they not also compensating each other to restore balance / equilibrium? Otherwise the cosmos will be in chaos - planets and galaxies will slaughter each other. Yet we're not seeing this happening especially in the habitable zone.

In other words these fine-tuned constants are moving along according to the direction of growth or expansion.

That is the electromagnetic force is still 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^40) not 10^41 or 10^39.

Same goes with the other forces.


tc






It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

~from Wiki

That's all it is... a proposition cannot be "true" simply because it cannot be proven false. Sort of like saying there must be aliens because no one has proven that they do not exist.

I'm going to think about your question on my drive home. Sometimes it is difficult for me to play devil's advocate but I think you realize that I'm actually trying to help you to refine your thoughts about this topic. I will learn something in the process as well.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
To answer your OP,

No. The "fine tuning argument" does not confirm anything other than what we already know....we live in just such a universe where all the constants that life requires are present. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

Extraordinary odds do not prove a miracle; despite the overwhelmingly low odds that you or I will ever win the lottery, people win them every single day.

Extraordinary odds become much less extraordinary the more time and space you consider. Remember, the scale with which we could feasibly measure cosmological events is almost beyond everyday comprehension.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



How do I lack logic?

If you could point me to a single logical fallacy that I have made in this or any other thread, you will have a case against my logic,


OK, let's use your own words to prove my point:

You said:


It is illogical to make absolute statements regarding things we know nothing about.


Yet you believe that Abiogenesis - an unproven theory.


"is far more evidence for life arising naturally, than there is for a designer."


Where's the logic in that?

Without the people behind the lab coats - replicating the ingredients for life - can life arose spontaneously? Evidence says NO!

Without the men and women FINE TUNING the mixtures of chemicals and finely calibrating instruments - can these ingredients for life appear by themselves? Evidence says NO!

Yet you believe in Abiogenesis - that is, life suddenly appearing from non-living materials by chance or accident, with no outside Intelligent Causal force.

In the same vain - without someone controlling and FINE TUNING the fundamental forces of the Universe, will they and can exist by themselves - let alone calibrate themselves? Or would they cancel each other out? What do you think?

Again what would happen if we slightly decrease or increase the forces from their constant values, what will happen? No life or for that matter - no universe. I'm sure you agree.

But "we are here" you say, of course - that's obvious but the question is where did life come from?

If the Universe is not FINELY TUNED - will there be life? Logically the answer is NO based on scientific facts.

If the Universe is not FINELY TUNED - will your precious doctrine of Abiogeneis exist?

What does your logic say? My logic say - impossible.

Yet you believe that -


"Abiogenesis"



"is far more evidence for life arising naturally, than there is for a designer."


Is this your opinion or an "absolute statement" based on scientific facts?

Yet you state that:


It is illogical to make absolute statements regarding things we know nothing about.


So where's the logic in that?

tc


later...
edit on 9-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: later



new topics




 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join