Scientific Evidence That The Universe Was Fine Tuned !

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: glend

And they never even purchased those tickets and they found them randomly too.

Odds are a Zillion to 1, and people are taking that bet, and the wager is their very life.

Now that is a crazy bet.

That's why people who are 50/50 on this topic and agnostics; well at least they attempt to hedge that bet.

Zillion is not a number. Perhaps you can give us a real number and break down the math on that for us?

Oh wait, you can't and you won't. You will just make ridiculous sounding statements like winning the lottery a million times in a row. Do you have the mathematical odds for the emergence of life? If you do not have these numbers, then your entire argument about odds goes out the window. The universe is huge. Even if the odds of life emerging or the conditions being present is 1 billion to 1 then it is still inevitable because there are way more than 1 billion stars. But we don't know those odds because we don't have complete universal knowledge. But it's funny, you act like you do. Now if only you could calculate the odds for god existing despite zero evidence of such. I'd wager the odds for god existing are much much more slim than the chance of a planetary system having an eclipse.

a reply to: Barcs

but as long as that margin of plausible suggestibility remains, they will defend their flag fiercely in the name of emotional security. just remember: the emotional security came first. and emotional security doesnt answer to science. unless its prescribed, of course.

Another good video on Fine Tuning:
vimeo.com...
See the description to other videos debunking the multiverse, etc...

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
The probability that our universe is the only universe and it also just happens to capable of supporting sentient life forms such as ourself is so minutely small that it's practically impossible.

I hear this claim quite a bit from creationists or religious folk. Nobody ever breaks down the numbers or attempts to calculate the odds, they just know it is practically impossible, because they said so. LOL. Maybe for once, somebody who makes this claim can back it up??? I doubt it.

The explanation for this could be that there are an infinite number of universes with differing laws of physics or it could be something else, but there is no denying that the universe we live in has highly fine-tuned laws of physics.

There is way too much we don't know about the universe to call it fine tuned. Sorry that's just your opinion, it's not a fact. Do you know the causes of the laws of the universe? Unless you have complete knowledge of the universe, it is impossible to determine. The universe isn't fined tuned in the least. Life survives almost nowhere.

There is nothing scientifically incorrect about stating that the universe is fine-tuned for sentient life (as long as you're not stating it was manually tuned by some godly intelligence).

Um, yes there is. By saying the universe is "fine tuned", it implies that somebody did the tuning. Otherwise it was NOT fine tuned, it's just the way it is.

The truth of the matter is that life adapted to the universe, the universe wasn't custom designed for us. Evolution proves that life adapts. Life on this planet 200 million years ago could not survive today. The reason is because life changes over time and organisms adapt.

Here's a direct argument against fine tuning:

Extinction level events are caused by space objects striking the earth.

What kind of a god fine tunes our solar system specifically for our type of life, and then leaves the planet open to being hit by all kinds of asteroids and other space debris leading to several mass extinctions. Fine tuned for life? Yeah right, we are lucky to still be here. The environment today is instant death to any creature from a hundred million + years ago. It's not about fine tuning, because I'd expect the earth to change to conform to us, rather than life constantly having to overcome environmental changes. It also makes you wonder about god being compassionate. Why would he need numerous mass extinctions to create humans? Why create life to be a constant competition for survival that is based almost exclusively on killing other life for food. Fine tuning makes zero sense.

originally posted by: texastig
Another good video on Fine Tuning:
vimeo.com...
See the description to other videos debunking the multiverse, etc...

see, that COULD be evidence of fine tuning. it could also be evidence that yet another idiot somewhere in the world got hold of a keyboard and an internet connection. doesnt take rocket science to do that. doesnt even take a diploma.

i do love how your expert material comes from the same site as half the bootlegged movies i watch. kinda tells me what to expect.

Another good video for fine tuning:
vimeo.com...

a reply to: texastig

again? cant you find a more prestigious or reputable source for your propaganda? seriously...

Does a tree in a forest make sound when it falls if no one is there to hear it?
Would a universe without nothing with conciousness think that the universe is finely tuned?

The video is not scientific, it's just an opinion. This still doesn't prove that a god created our universe or that universes can't exist without a god. Even if the universe was tuned, the person that tuned it doesn't have to be a creator or a god. Would someone making a guitar out of a tree be a god because he finely tuned the wood?

The materials of the universe and the person that tuned it wouldn't absolutely have to be the same person.

a reply to: texastig

Another sterling publication from the Journal of Vimeo?

a reply to: daskakik

Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.

The force of gravity is a known known, its strength, strangely set to a minute degree that allows life to exist, That's amazing in itself, regardless of the underlying mechanics. Perhaps thats why some of the greatest minds humanity has every created (Isaac Newtom etc) believed in GOD. If one believes their logic is greater than that of Isaac Newton they'd need huge shoulders to carry that enormous head of theirs .

Gotta go with what you know.

Einstein was able to break through more of the veil because he ignored mainstream science belief at the time (time is static etc). Sometimes to learn something new, we must unlearn everything else.

a reply to: glend

Did you know that Isaac Newtom claimed his greatest accomplishment was that he kept a lifelong celibacy.


I have a cousin that is really smart when it comes to technical things with electronics which is why he runs the tech department that deals with all the US satellite systems, but he doesn't seem to have a bit of common sense when it comes to other things in life.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: daskakik

Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.

The force of gravity is a known known, its strength, strangely set to a minute degree that allows life to exist, That's amazing in itself, regardless of the underlying mechanics. Perhaps thats why some of the greatest minds humanity has every created (Isaac Newtom etc) believed in GOD. If one believes their logic is greater than that of Isaac Newton they'd need huge shoulders to carry that enormous head of theirs

.

Isaac Newton also liked to stick needles in his eye just to see what would happen. I don't recommend you try the same.

This is also known as the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein was able to break through more of the veil because he ignored mainstream science belief at the time (time is static etc). Sometimes to learn something new, we must unlearn everything else.

Einstein and other great minds worked on scientific anomalies, each proposing solutions and experiments to test them. He wasn't some renegade, he did what all scientists did: devise models to explain what we know and make useful predictions to test them, changing their positions once evidence came in to push the answer one way or the other.

a reply to: glend

einstein rejected conventional theism. look it up.

and stephen hawking, one of the greatest minds currently living, is an atheist.

originally posted by: glend
If one believes their logic is greater than that of Isaac Newton they'd need huge shoulders to carry that enormous head of theirs

.

Doesn't mean your argument isn't a fallacy.

Einstein was able to break through more of the veil because he ignored mainstream science belief at the time (time is static etc). Sometimes to learn something new, we must unlearn everything else.

Case in point.

originally posted by: glend
The force of gravity is a known known, its strength, strangely set to a minute degree that allows life to exist, That's amazing in itself, regardless of the underlying mechanics. Perhaps thats why some of the greatest minds humanity has every created (Isaac Newtom etc) believed in GOD. If one believes their logic is greater than that of Isaac Newton they'd need huge shoulders to carry that enormous head of theirs

.

Yep, and there's nothing wrong with believing that in the least. The universe is vast and amazing. Science and belief in god do not conflict. It's just the idea that there is actual scientific evidence of "fine tuning" or "intelligent design" that is false. There is not objective evidence anywhere of such a thing. The fine tuning belief is purely an emotion-based opinion, that relies on assuming that we can detect design when we have nothing to compare it to or reference. It relies on assuming that complexity cannot arise over time, and that not knowing the answer to something automatically means god did it.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Is this supposed to be some sort of hokey religious rhetoric, or a threat?

No, it's more of a warning like a sign on the road that advises a driver of a danger ahead, a driver can choose to ignore it
and risk his life and those in the vehicle with him(his children). Or pay attention and react accordingly to insure both his families safety and himself.

Then again some people think they can take a sharp corner that is advises a 25 mph speed going 65 mph in the pouring rain, because, well they think they are a capable driver, they know better.

How is that going to end ?

Cool story, but it doesn't relate whatsoever to the topic at hand, nor does it address the original question. Instead of using (rather lame) dire sounding metaphors in an attempt to 'scare' people into buying whatever it is you're selling, why don't you just come out and say it?

a reply to: GetHyped

Again, if there wasn't a hole to begin with then the puddle wouldn't be asking the question. OF COURSE this universe is capable of supporting life, otherwise we wouldn't be here! The puddle's hole is not "fine tuned", the puddle is fine tuned to the hole.

Was the human that is going to rest in this hole fine tuned to the hole? Or was the hole fine tuned to the human remains?





In the case of this pool, the hole was designed and engineered, with the intent that the water would conform to the design.

a reply to: dusty1

It seems you have trouble grasping analogies.

My BIC lighter proves that fire is intelligent burning!

My BIC lighter proves that fire is intelligent burning!

a reply to: GetHyped


It is intelligent burning.

Someone thought up the idea of a lighter, designed and invented it.

a reply to: dusty1

Except we know unequivocally that graves, swimming pools and lighters are man made. Now provide objective, testable evidence that the universe was designed and objective, testable evidence as to who (or what) the designer is.

This is where your analogy falls flat on its face.