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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 





The simple answer is, our universe is finely tuned to support life because we're here observing it. Period. We should expect the universe to be so "tuned' to support life because here we are alive making the observation.


Great - now that we all agree that indeed the universe fine-tuned for life. So the question that needs to be answered is - Who Fine Tuned It?

You said in reply:




That says absolutely NOTHING about WHY the universe is "tuned" or even "who tuned it". That's a completely different discussion that frankly cannot be answered simply from the observation that the universe supports life.


What makes you think that it "cannot be answered simply from the observation that the universe supports life"?

tc.




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Your entire reasoning can be summed it this way - there's no God thus all of these just came to be. Since you can't dissect God in a petri dish therefore there's no proof that he exist.

End of sentence.

tc.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Problem with your abiogenesis theory is that it's Intelligent while the Abiognensis theory as explained by evolution scientist is not.

From Wiki:


Abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen. The geologic era in which abiogenesis took place likely was the Eoarchean era, i.e. the time after the Hadean era in which the Earth was essentially molten.


en.wikipedia.org...

So if we remove the intelligence in it - ergo the lab techs and scientists - and go natural - will life arise from non-living inorganic matter?

In other words WITHOUT the people fine-tuning the system - will life arise from non-living inorganic matter?

As for your Q:



Why does everything that science can't yet fully explain automatically get attributed to god?


gee - i dunno - but seriously do you really believe that?




Pure comedy. It is neither absolute statement nor personal opinion. You love to answer questions with questions. That statement is a summary of what scientists have learned about abiogenesis thus far. It's not absolute because it can change, and it's not opinion because it's been duplicated in a lab. What has science learned about god? Where are the experiments that duplicate the creation process or show god is necessary for anything in the universe? That's a big fat goose egg. Like I explained above, there is more science in favor of life arising naturally than the latter. It doesn't mean that either is proven, and I'm not suggesting god definitely doesn't exist, just that science has more in favor of natural over non - natural / ID at this point in time. Simple logical conclusion.


Yet when science points to an Intelligent Tuner / Designer - it's wrong because why again?



tc



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Great - now that we all agree that indeed the universe fine-tuned for life. So the question that needs to be answered is - Who Fine Tuned It?


It's a rather meaningless question because it doesn't need to be asked. The need to ask it is not necessitated by the mere observation that the universe appears to be finely tuned, because of course we can expect the universe to be finely tuned to support life--otherwise we wouldn't be here asking the question to begin with.

Take an example I listed in another thread: what are the odds that the tube of toothpaste that is (hopefully) sitting in your bathroom right now would find itself there, at this moment of time? Out of all the tubes of toothpaste ever manufactured throughout history, what are the odds that this exact one is now sitting in your medicine cabinet?

Now let's pretend the tube of toothpaste has some form of self-awareness, at least enough to ask itself, why, out of all the tubes of toothpaste in the entire universe, am I sitting here in your bathroom? And from such observations the tube may conclude that you selected it on purpose.

Of course you know better. Your selection was entirely random, and yet one particular tube would be the "lucky" one you chose. The fact that it was chosen means absolutely nothing (other than you practice good hygiene).



What makes you think that it "cannot be answered simply from the observation that the universe supports life"?


Because an observation that X exists does not answer who or what--if anything--created it. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



Your entire reasoning can be summed it this way - there's no God thus all of these just came to be. Since you can't dissect God in a petri dish therefore there's no proof that he exist.

End of sentence.

tc.





No, my argument is that you haven't presented any objective evidence to support your claims, which is a FACT.


Until you present objective evidence instead of "this looks fine tuned and science can't explain it...ergo god did it" wanna-be evidence, all you do is preaching


And that would be fine. Sadly you have the nasty habit of pretending your BELIEF (that isn't backed up by any objective evidence) is somehow a fact or "truth"...which it clearly isn't.
edit on 11-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by Blarneystoner


Hahaha.... you're a riot.

I'm fairly certain it's not anthropomorphic to believe that if heavy elements were not present and if the weak force, gravity was not strong enough to hold matter together that life would not exist in our Universe.

But didn't you just write these words;

" ....for the purpose of this thread if it was made so for life (us) by a creator (puddle thinking) or rather that we are here because the conditions were favorable for spontaneous life(us/carbon based) to emerge.


Which is it bro? Are we talking about some unknown goo that is not Carbon based or are we talking about life as we know it? You can't seem to make up your mind. If we're talking about Carbon based life than fine-tuniing is absolutley essential, if not then I suppose I'll conceded that your imaginary life form could exist. But... you can't have it both ways angry troll dude.
edit on 10-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


You realise of course it would not be "our" universe without those conditions ? Guess not.

You seem to be completely missing the point....should I type slower ?

The question is simply - was the universe "tuned" for us or are we here because the universe is favorable for our type of life ?

Addendum : I am not angry nor a troll and certainly don't consider myself as your bro' or a dude. I am however confused at your inability to understand the root question.

edit on 10-4-2012 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



Please tell me you're not that stupid. Go back and read all of my responses here. I've been arguing against the premise of this thread the entire time. Were you not paying attention, bro?

Since it's obvious that you haven't been reading all the responses in this thread, I still contend that you're trolling... whether you want to own it or not doesn't matter to me, dude.
edit on 11-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by Blarneystoner


Hahaha.... you're a riot.

I'm fairly certain it's not anthropomorphic to believe that if heavy elements were not present and if the weak force, gravity was not strong enough to hold matter together that life would not exist in our Universe.

But didn't you just write these words;

" ....for the purpose of this thread if it was made so for life (us) by a creator (puddle thinking) or rather that we are here because the conditions were favorable for spontaneous life(us/carbon based) to emerge.


Which is it bro? Are we talking about some unknown goo that is not Carbon based or are we talking about life as we know it? You can't seem to make up your mind. If we're talking about Carbon based life than fine-tuniing is absolutley essential, if not then I suppose I'll conceded that your imaginary life form could exist. But... you can't have it both ways angry troll dude.
edit on 10-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


You realise of course it would not be "our" universe without those conditions ? Guess not.

You seem to be completely missing the point....should I type slower ?

The question is simply - was the universe "tuned" for us or are we here because the universe is favorable for our type of life ?

Addendum : I am not angry nor a troll and certainly don't consider myself as your bro' or a dude. I am however confused at your inability to understand the root question.

edit on 10-4-2012 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



Please tell me you're not that stupid. Go back and read all of my responses here. I've been arguing against the premise of this thread the entire time. Were you not paying attention, bro?

Since it's obvious that you haven't been reading all the responses in this thread, I still contend that you're trolling... whether you want to own it or not doesn't matter to me, dude.
edit on 11-4-2012 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)


You started with abusive ad hominem. You continue in that vein, all in response to an initial post that was addressed to the thread question NOT you and yet I am trolling ?
I have responded to you simply because I felt like doing so. Your particular viewpoint is of little importance to me.
Calm down, remember the best debates are a civil exchange of ideas and views.
It isn't a contest.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
So if we remove the intelligence in it - ergo the lab techs and scientists - and go natural - will life arise from non-living inorganic matter?

In other words WITHOUT the people fine-tuning the system - will life arise from non-living inorganic matter?
The answer to that question is still hypothetical because abiogenesis is far from being proven, but yes, if it can happen in a lab under certain conditions, then it can happen on earth under those same conditions.


As for your Q:



Why does everything that science can't yet fully explain automatically get attributed to god?


gee - i dunno - but seriously do you really believe that?


I'm asking that because you are assuming that because science can't yet fully explain what causes some of the forces and why the measurements are what they are, that they must have been created by god. In the olden days plenty of cultures assumed the earth was flat, because that's what they were told and blindly believed it. They attributed things like lightning, phases of the moon, bad weather and everything else they couldn't understand to god. Many believed god made the earth the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. Nowadays, we understand much more about our surroundings, so we know those things are ridiculous. What will you say in twenty years or so if they discover the origin of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and find out why they are balanced the way they are? You will probably latch on to the next big thing that science hasn't learned yet.



Pure comedy. It is neither absolute statement nor personal opinion. You love to answer questions with questions. That statement is a summary of what scientists have learned about abiogenesis thus far. It's not absolute because it can change, and it's not opinion because it's been duplicated in a lab. What has science learned about god? Where are the experiments that duplicate the creation process or show god is necessary for anything in the universe? That's a big fat goose egg. Like I explained above, there is more science in favor of life arising naturally than the latter. It doesn't mean that either is proven, and I'm not suggesting god definitely doesn't exist, just that science has more in favor of natural over non - natural / ID at this point in time. Simple logical conclusion.


Yet when science points to an Intelligent Tuner / Designer - it's wrong because why again?


Perhaps you should read the paragraph you quoted. There is no science that points toward an intelligent designer, you are giving your opinion on the unexplained and nothing more.

To me, complexity and universal forces simply say that there is a lot more to learn about the universe before anyone can claim they know the answer.
edit on 11-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
It is a leap of faith either way, it boils down to whether you believe there is only the physical or whether there is some other spiritual element (without even getting into a specific religious book)

For me the question is easily answered when I look at my son and daughter- do I think of them as nothing more than physical matter, just blood, bones, and with thoughts and feelings that have no deeper meaning than chemical reactions in their brain?


No, I choose the non physical only path
edit on 11-4-2012 by blueorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
It is a leap of faith either way, it boils down to whether you believe there is only the physical or whether there is some other spiritual element (without even getting into a specific religious book)

For me the question is easily answered when I look at my son and daughter- do I think of them as nothing more than physical matter, just blood, bones, and with thoughts and feelings that have no deeper meaning than chemical reactions in their brain?


No, I choose the non physical only path


Why does it have to be one way or the other? Why can't it be a combination of the 2? You don't have to take a absolutist perspective and support one extreme or the other. It is not a leap of faith to go along with scientific evidence, however, but the part that is wrong is when people say that science disproves god. That's not true. There may not be any physical evidence of god, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just grinds my gears when people start talking nonsense about science like the OP.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by camus154
 


Originally posted by edmc^2
Great - now that we all agree that indeed the universe fine-tuned for life. So the question that needs to be answered is - Who Fine Tuned It?




It's a rather meaningless question because it doesn't need to be asked. The need to ask it is not necessitated by the mere observation that the universe appears to be finely tuned, because of course we can expect the universe to be finely tuned to support life--otherwise we wouldn't be here asking the question to begin with. Take an example I listed in another thread: what are the odds that the tube of toothpaste that is (hopefully) sitting in your bathroom right now would find itself there, at this moment of time? Out of all the tubes of toothpaste ever manufactured throughout history, what are the odds that this exact one is now sitting in your medicine cabinet? Now let's pretend the tube of toothpaste has some form of self-awareness, at least enough to ask itself, why, out of all the tubes of toothpaste in the entire universe, am I sitting here in your bathroom? And from such observations the tube may conclude that you selected it on purpose. Of course you know better. Your selection was entirely random, and yet one particular tube would be the "lucky" one you chose. The fact that it was chosen means absolutely nothing (other than you practice good hygiene).


Sorry to be too thick but you lost me there camus154.

What does a toothpaste has to do with the Fine Tuned universe again?

and why is it:



meaningless question because it doesn't need to be asked.

???


Isn't it the point of enlightenment and great learning is to ask QUESTIONS?

What's the point of "DENYING IGNORANCE" if we can't ask a question behind something profound?

Sorry dude but you're regressing.

And if you think that it "cannot be answered simply from the observation that the universe supports life" - then to quote what you said a while back:




You're settling for a cheap and easy answer to satiate your quite human curiosity, but sadly this is hardly scientific in nature.


But just to satiate my quite human curiosity:

I posted this in the OP and would like to know if you have any logical answer to it?


If a simple flint arrowhead require a maker why not the the highly fine-tuned universe?


tc.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Sorry to be too thick but you lost me there camus154.

What does a toothpaste has to do with the Fine Tuned universe again?


Hehe, you're not thick, that was probably just a horrid analogy.

What I'm getting at is essentially "puddle thinking", so coined by Douglas Adams:


... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.


The point is, it's easy to be on the inside looking out, marveling at how everything seems to be manufactured just so as to allow for our existence. Thus, the conclusion is that things were indeed manufactured for our very existence, rather than the rather mundane realization that because we're here making the observation, of course everything would seem to be aligned to allow for the observation, otherwise we wouldn't be making it!

Does that make sense to you?



meaningless question because it doesn't need to be asked.

???


Isn't it the point of enlightenment and great learning is to ask QUESTIONS?

What's the point of "DENYING IGNORANCE" if we can't ask a question behind something profound?

Sorry dude but you're regressing.


What I mean is, observing that the universe seems to support life means nothing, since we are alive observing it. You cannot extrapolate any further theory from the mere observation itself. So it's a meaningless question, because obviously since we are alive, it follows the universe would support life to begin with. There's nothing significant about the observation. It's a truism.



But just to satiate my quite human curiosity:

I posted this in the OP and would like to know if you have any logical answer to it?


If a simple flint arrowhead require a maker why not the the highly fine-tuned universe?


tc.



Well, ok, it's a fine question, but...what do you expect me to say? You're picking a known created artifact and comparing that to the universe and then asking why the universe shouldn't require a maker just as the artifact does.

In other words, you're assuming the conclusion. I could just as easily point at any number of triangular-shaped natural rocks that could indeed be used as arrowheads and assume that a real arrowhead was shaped not by human hands but by the wind, rain, and other elements.
edit on 12-4-2012 by camus154 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by camus154

Isn't it the point of enlightenment and great learning is to ask QUESTIONS?


Not when your only answer is BIBLE.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





No, my argument is that you haven't presented any objective evidence to support your claims, which is a FACT. Until you present objective evidence instead of "this looks fine tuned and science can't explain it...ergo god did it" wanna-be evidence, all you do is preaching And that would be fine. Sadly you have the nasty habit of pretending your BELIEF (that isn't backed up by any objective evidence) is somehow a fact or "truth"...which it clearly isn't.


haha! - you keep saying "looks fine tuned" but I said FINE-TUNED TO THE HIGHEST PRECISION. There's no ambiguity about it - it is FINE TUNED - not only me that is saying this by many experts in the field say it so.

But since you can't accept that it is, so it's understandable why you think that way.

To use your words:

"And that would be fine. Sadly you have the nasty habit of pretending your BELIEF (that isn't backed up by any objective evidence) is somehow a fact or "truth"...which it clearly isn't."

I'm in good company when it comes to The Fine Tuned Universe.

And like I said - since you lack logic and common sense you wouldn't understand - why an Intelligent Design, a highly fine-tuned design requires an Intelligent Designer / Creator.

tata..



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Fine tuned according to what standards??? If life as we know it was the goal, it's demonstrably a massive failure as the LARGE majority of space is deadly to life as we know it.

And again, you still use the god of the gaps argument (because we don't know how life started, and you fill that gap in knowledge with magic) and argument from complexity. Your entire argumentation is ridiculous, sorry.





And like I said - since you lack logic and common sense you wouldn't understand


That's ironic coming from a guy who uses 2 fallacies as his main arguments





I'm in good company when it comes to The Fine Tuned Universe.


Doesn't matter until you provide objective evidence...which you haven't. And what "company" are you talking about? Clowns like Ben Stein?

edit on 12-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Fine tuned according to what standards??? If life as we know it was the goal, it's demonstrably a massive failure as the LARGE majority of space is deadly to life as we know it. And again, you still use the god of the gaps argument (because we don't know how life started, and you fill that gap in knowledge with magic) and argument from complexity. Your entire argumentation is ridiculous, sorry.


Like I said - no logic and common sense and can't see the obvious. Anyway doesn't matter as you're entitled to your belief.

As for this funny statement of yours:




And what "company" are you talking about? Clowns like Ben Stein?


These "Clowns" - too many to name here.

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:




If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature -- like the charge on the electron -- then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.


Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:




If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.


Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:




"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life -- almost contrived -- you might say a 'put-up job'."


The August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States:




The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.


Stephen Hawking




"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."


Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics




how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.

...
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.


Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford,




namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)

....

Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on eachseparate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -..


ran out of post character - but let me know if you need more "clowns", OK?

and oh btw - read somewhere that fools and the ignorant will attack the messenger instead of the message to hide their foolishness and ignorance. Is this true?

So are the "clowns" quoted above just blowing air?

tata...

edit - quote source: www.aish.com...
edit on 12-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit - forgot to add quote source



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Marshmallows have a sweet taste. Clouds look just like marshmallows. This confirms that clouds must have a sweet taste!

Start with fact, make comparison to something irrelevant, then draw wild conclusion based on false association.

Forces in the universe can be measured. Humans use their intelligence to measure things. This confirms that all things that we can measure must have come from intelligence!

It's a simple formula, really, and only appeals to ignorance.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Marshmallows have a sweet taste. Clouds look just like marshmallows. This confirms that clouds must have a sweet taste!

Start with fact, make comparison to something irrelevant, then draw wild conclusion based on false association.

Forces in the universe can be measured. Humans use their intelligence to measure things. This confirms that all things that we can measure must have came from intelligence!

It's a simple formula, really, and only appeals to ignorance.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Like I said all along - no logic and common sense.

BTW - Albert Einstein once admitted this:



“It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity; to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe, which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifest in nature.”


At one point in time when he was formulating his famous and widely accepted theory of relativity he introduce something profound in his equation. He called it:




“cosmological constant”


Any idea what this “cosmological constant” mean?


And was he according to your (illogical) thinking "appealing to ignorance" when he said the above quotes?

tata..



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by camus154

Isn't it the point of enlightenment and great learning is to ask QUESTIONS?


Not when your only answer is BIBLE.


huh! where have you been man?

Topic is Fine Tuned Universe not the Scriptures but hey since you mentioned it how about this one?

“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)

Question:

What are these "invisible qualities" that we can see in nature?

Are these qualities point to a Creator a Master Fine Tuner?

What do the scientific facts say?

The Fine Tuned Universe points to a Master Fine Tuner.

tc.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by camus154

Isn't it the point of enlightenment and great learning is to ask QUESTIONS?


Not when your only answer is BIBLE.


huh! where have you been man?


Reading this forum. Your "logic" is thus:

1) Bible
2) ???
3) Evidence!




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join