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.
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).
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?
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.
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
“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
“With just this tiny adjustment, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.”
What's the difference btween reality and a simulation if you are actually living inside the sim?
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.
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'
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?
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
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.
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.
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
“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
“With just this tiny adjustment, a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.”
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.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Like I said - since you lack logic and common sense you're not able to go beyond the obvious.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
It is illogical to make absolute statements regarding things we know nothing about.
"is far more evidence for life arising naturally, than there is for a designer."
"Abiogenesis"
"is far more evidence for life arising naturally, than there is for a designer."
It is illogical to make absolute statements regarding things we know nothing about.