Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[florduh]

At least he's getting a free college education.

[thesadclown]

His problem is with his underlying theory, namely his belief that we ought to not only doubt science but consider taking up his religion (again!) if we can't convince him. I am being generous in my interpretation here, because if he really is looking to be convinced, he's an idiot for doing it this way. So we either have a disengenuous inquiry or an idiot. Either way, I'm not going to be losing any sleep over not being able to convince him.

[bornagainathiest]

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured. According to the BBT, matter, space , and time where created at the Big Bang. this is supported by the big majority of scientists today.

 

Everything that exists is made of this. It is eternal, only the form changes.

 

the past cannot be eternal.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hey B.I.G.!

 

I just noticed this...

 

"the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured."

 

Thats a typo of yours, right?

You meant to write, "the laws of thermodynamics apply ONCE the Big Bang occured", didn't you?

 

Ok then, so how are you applying these Laws to our universe?

Or, putting it another way, which kind of Thermodynamic system are you saying our universe is?

 

http://en.wikipedia....dynamic_systems

 

Open, Closed or Isolated?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[BrotherJosh]

Do you have some more substantial argument, than just handwaving ?

 

Do you have anything other than pissing in the wind?

 

Neither did i claim this.

 

Whether you did or not has no bearing on the question, because the issue at hand is whether or not there is a fine tuner doesn't matter because obviously this "fine tuner" is not involved in the current operation of the universe or the lives of it's inhabitants. So you say you believe in Jeebus when you really have no basis to believe that he is the fine tuner because you can't stake a claim that he is the fine tuner because it could be any manner of gods.

 

No, its actually the other way aroung : because we know the universe is finely tuned to life, we rationally deduce a fine tuner.

 

No, we don't know the universe is finely tuned to life because we (life) adapted to the universe as it is.

 

How are these extraordinary numbers to be explained? The most popular explanation and the one that appeals to Dawkins, is the ‘multiverse’. The idea here is that, unbeknown to us, there are other universes, all slightly different, so that it becomes more likely that in that number, a universe like ours might exist. Davies wrote, “The multiverse theory seeks to replace the appearance of design by the hand of chance.”[9] I have read some accounts that leave one to believe that a relatively small number of other universes would significantly alter the probabilities. That however is clearly not the case.

 

I'm curious why you quote Paul Davies (?), I am assuming you have read, "Cosmic Jackpot"? You realize Paul Davies is a proponent of the participatory universe wherein as we observe physical laws we ourselves fine tune them? I am not Richard Dawkins so ascribing my views as his just because I am an "atheist" is certainly an interesting choice on your part.

 

How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500. It might help to see that number written out. It is 1 with 500 zeroes after it.

 

http://www.technolog...og/arxiv/23377/

 

this guy argues only about one fine tune constant. We know over 120 today.....

 

Honestly, this stuff has been covered in a great thread found here:

http://www.ex-christ...t/page__st__240

 

I suggest you read through it.

 

But let's get down to brass tax. Explain to me your view of the universe and this fine tuner and how we can deduce it is your God.

 

For you viewing pleasure as well.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY

 

Also, a couple articles for your reading pleasure.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_...4/0604027v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_...0807.3697v1.pdf

[believeingod]

I don't think it happened by chance. I believe the universe is deterministic,

 

Fine, you agree chance is not a good explanation. Lets see if physical need, or as you call it, a deterministic universe is a better answer. In the fine-tune arguments are the distance of the sun from the earth, the moon from the earth, size of the earth crust etc. included. Alle these paramenters must be in a finely adjusted range, otherwise life is not possible. Is there a need these distances to be as they are ? Certainly not. Since the big majority of these parameters and distances in other galaxies and earth like planets do not permit life, since they are outside the right range to permit life.

 

just as a example :

 

to name only a few :

 

PROBABILITY FOR LIFE ON EARTH (APR 2004)

 

http://www.reasons.org/design/solar-system-design/probability-life-earth-apr-2004

 

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

 

less than 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

 

SIZE AND GRAVITY: There is a range for the size of a planet and it gravity which supports life and it is small. A planet the size of Jupiter would have gravity that would crush any life form, and any high order carbon molecules, out of existence.

WATER: Without a sufficient amount of water, life could not exist.

ATMOSPHERE: Not only must a planet have an atmosphere, it must have a certain percentage of certain gasses to permit life. On earth the air we breath is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% argon and carbon dioxide. Without the 78% nitrogen to “blanket’ the combustion of oxygen, our world would ‘burn up’ from oxidation. Nitrogen inhibits combustion and permits life to flourish. No other planet comes close to this makeup of atmosphere.

OXYGEN: The range of oxygen level in the atmosphere that permits life can be fairly broad, but oxygen is definitely necessary for life.

RARE EARTHS MINERALS: Many chemical processes necessary for life are dependent on elements we call ‘rare earth’ minerals. These only exist as ‘trace’ amounts, but without which life could not continue.

THE SUN: Our sun is an average star in both composition and size. The larger a star is the faster it burns out. It would take longer for life to develop than those larger stars would exist. Smaller stars last longer but do not develop properly to give off the heat and radiation necessary to sustain life on any planets that form. The smaller the star the less likely it will form a planetary system at all.

DISTANCE FROM THE SUN: To have a planet with a surface temperature within the bounds for life, it must be within the ‘biosphere’ of a star, a temperate zone of a given distance from the source of radiation and heat. That would depend on the size of the star. For an average star the size of our sun, that distance would be about 60 to 150 million miles.

RADIOACTIVITY: Without radioactivity, the earth would have cooled to a cold rock 3 billion years ago. Radioactivity is responsible for the volcanism, and heat generated in the interior of the earth. Volcanism is responsible for many of the rare elements we need as well as the oxygen in the air. Most rocky planets have some radioactivity.

DISTANCE AND PLACEMENT FROM THE GALACTIC CENTER: We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.

THE OZONE LAYER: Animal life on land survives because of the ozone layer which shields the ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth’s surface. The ozone layer would never have formed without oxygen reaching a given level of density in the atmosphere. A planet with less oxygen would not have an ozone layer.

VOLCANIC ACTIVITY: Volcanic activity is responsible for bringing heaver elements and gasses to the surface, as well as oxygen. Without this activity, the planet would never have sustained life in the first place.

EARTH’S MAGNETIC FIELD: We are bombarded daily with deadly rays from the sun, but are protected by the earth’s magnetic field.

SEASONS: Because of the earths tilt, we have seasons, and no part of the earth is extremely hot or cold. The seasons have balancing effect of the temperature on the surface and cause the winds and sea currents which we and all life depend on for a temperate climate.

THE MOON: We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a ‘two-planet’ system, as the size of earth’s moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

[believeingod]

I love the word probably, too. Scientists and those who accept science accept that we cannot know a lot of things with complete certainty. They have the courage to deal with uncertainty rather than resort to the false certainty that religion provides.

 

yes, we cannot know with certainty, but when the probability of our universe come into existence by chance is calculated by m-theorist's at one to 10^500 , then you can figure out, if chance is a good explanation, or not.

I guess , actually, i am quit sure, its not.

Sound like pretty good chances to me. If there were 10^100000 universes coming into existence every planck time,I'd say there has to be many universes out there.

 

and what was the cause of them ?

[believeingod]

i am not a specialist about bad design, and maibe you are right, and the answers are not satisfying . But so what ? there are also things in the bible, that leave a interrogation point. There is not everything 100% explained in a manner, that satisifies me. But when i look to all other alternatives, aka atheism/naturalism , for example, the provided explanations do not withstand scrutiny at all. Naturalism is falling the truth test easily, and obviously. But, feel free to present reasons, which might change the vision of things i have. So far, all here have fallen short to come up with a consistent explanation and world view.

 

Wow, you have thoroughly debunked the world of science in a single post. I'll be sure and alert Stephen Hawking so he can get the ball rolling letting the world community of science know that all their peer reviews, all their tests, all their elegant findings, moreover all the technology we have grown to love and enjoy that have resulted from their efforts, have been for naught and are merely a pretty illusion.

 

Or, you are just too uninformed, disinterested and perhaps lack the mental capacity to take it all in and see the implications of what mankind has discovered over the past few millenia.

 

since when is there a peer reviewed report about HOW the Big Bang started, what caused it ?

[believeingod]

Naturalism is falling the truth test easily, and obviously.

Only if you willfully ignore facts and logic. I mean real facts and real logic, not the Biblical kind.

 

present them !!

[Vigile]

In the fine-tune arguments are the distance of the sun from the earth, the moon from the earth, size of the earth crust etc. included.

 

So, the puddle says to the hole, you fit me perfectly...

 

You need to watch the vid Josh posted in post #79

[Vigile]

since when is there a peer reviewed report about HOW the Big Bang started, what caused it ?

 

You really have no idea what a scientific theory is, do you.

[bornagainathiest]

 

since when is there a peer reviewed report about HOW the Big Bang started, what caused it ?

 

It doesn't matter what caused it. The logical outcome of it is that we inhabit an infinite cosmos, of which our observable universe is just one small part. Any infinite ensemble blows the Fine-Tuning Argument out of the water. Fine-tuning is a P.R.A.T.T.

Point Refuted A Thousand Times.

 

Deal with it, B.I.G. guy.

 

BAA.

[Vigile]

Naturalism is falling the truth test easily, and obviously.

Only if you willfully ignore facts and logic. I mean real facts and real logic, not the Biblical kind.

 

present them !!

 

Go to the university!!

 

Again, we aren't your educators. You want simple answers that can be cut and pasted onto a message board for you. Your depth of ignorance is far too vast to address in this format.

[florduh]

present them !!

go get an education!

[believeingod]

Naturalism is based on the truth as best as we can find it.

 

No , naturalism is based on a naturalist philosophy, namely that a supernatural power does not exist. Since Gods existence cannot be proven, naturalism cannot claim to be true.

 

 

 

 

Sure it's imperfect. There are an infinite number of truths, and a finite number of imperfect humans with finite minds will only know a finite subset of these truths in an imperfect manner. As imperfect and incomplete as it may be, with science, we have the best means of obtaining truth.

 

 

that is why i rely my world view also on science. And to my understanding, the evidence of scientific inquiry leads direct to theism. chance, and physical necessity, both mentioned here, and as far as i understand, the only two alternatives to a intelligent designer, are completly flawed on various accounts.

 

 

Science has provided a clear, though no doubt bumpy, progression from ignorance towards truth as best we can know it.

 

truth cannot be reached through science, since historical science is limited. We cannot go back in time, and see what happened.

 

 

 

In regard to convincing you of anything, one of the great things about letting go of religion is that I don't feel that I have to.

 

 

Neither do i have to convince anyone about my faith. Thats each ones personal business.

 

 

The sky isn't going to fall if you believe differently. If you only come away from these debates with anything, it should be that religion doesn't provide real certainty.

 

 

It doesnt provide absolute proofs. But what does ? You have no real certainty that tomorrow the sun will shine...... all we can do , is to rely our lives on our experience and reason, but not on absolute proofs.

[bornagainathiest]

 

http://www.technolog...og/arxiv/23377/

 

this guy argues only about one fine tune constant. We know over 120 today.....

 

The number of fine-tuning constants applied to what, B.I.G.?

 

Just to our observed universe?

 

 

Well, guess what?

In an infinite ensemble of pocket universes (that includes ours) it wouldn't matter if the number of Fine Tuning constants were 120 or 1,200 or 1,200,000,000,000,000. In a infinity, ALL possible conditions are realized an infinite number of times.

 

Give it up, bro...

 

You're dead in the water with this one.

 

BAA.

[Ouroboros]

 

and what was the cause of them ?

And what was the cause of God? The probability of God existing is zero.

 

Since the chance of the universe coming into existence is 10^500 then is the more likely explanation.

[believeingod]

 

 

 

the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured. According to the BBT, matter, space , and time where created at the Big Bang. this is supported by the big majority of scientists today.

 

Everything that exists is made of this. It is eternal, only the form changes.

 

the past cannot be eternal.

 

Correction.

The past cannot be locally eternal.

 

If our observable universe did originate with the Big Bang event, then we can agree that our observable universe can be no more 13.7 billion years old, yes? Fine. Then that is all you can confidently say on this matter. Our local universe cannot be past eternal.

 

But if what we see (the observable universe) is just part of a much greater cosmic whole, then all bets are off when it comes to statements like, 'the past cannot be eternal'. You simply have no grounds for making that statement for anything else than the one data sample we have - our observed universe.

 

 

that makes no difference at all. First of all, there is a common agreement that time began with the big bang. but lets assume that were not the case, and time existed prior the big bang.

 

http://www.hoshuha.com/articles/existence.html

 

 

..if the universe...is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed--one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before--in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point--for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point--or any point before it.

 

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite...1

That's why the universe can't be infinite: if time is infinite, then sequential events cannot occur. So option one is not an option, after all.

 

 

 

 

That is why I've corrected you and clarified your statement to apply only to our observable universe - which is all that you can speak about. It is this (deliberately?) imprecise use of terminology that I caught you out on, earlier in this thread. Once your statement is corrected for it's misuse of language, your argument evaporates in a puff of logic.

 

i don't see your point. As long as time is constituted by a addition of parts, a infinite past cannot exist.

 

 

 

 

1.

 

The Inflationary Era was when the early universe expanded super-luminally (faster than the speed of light) and exponentially.

Therefore, the region which is observable by us can only be a vanishingly small part of a vastly greater and probably infinitely large whole. Since it's bad science and poor logic to look at a tiny fraction of 1% of anything and conclude that the remaining 99.999999999999999999999% of it must therefore obey exactly the same rules as the less-than-1% we can see, your argument has a major flaw to it. Specifically, your data sample (our observable universe) is impractically small for you to take it and make the sweeping statement that the past cannot be eternal.

 

you should not tell that to me, but to the big majority of scientists, which all believe our universe is finite. I understand, atheists have trouble to accept this, but should the evidence not lead us wherever it is ?

 

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

 

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

 

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

 

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

 

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

 

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

 

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

 

 

 

[believeingod]

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured. According to the BBT, matter, space , and time where created at the Big Bang. this is supported by the big majority of scientists today.

 

Everything that exists is made of this. It is eternal, only the form changes.

 

the past cannot be eternal.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hey B.I.G.!

 

I just noticed this...

 

"the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured."

 

Thats a typo of yours, right?

You meant to write, "the laws of thermodynamics apply ONCE the Big Bang occured", didn't you?

 

Ok then, so how are you applying these Laws to our universe?

Or, putting it another way, which kind of Thermodynamic system are you saying our universe is?

 

http://en.wikipedia....dynamic_systems

 

Open, Closed or Isolated?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

its a isolated system

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured. According to the BBT, matter, space , and time where created at the Big Bang. this is supported by the big majority of scientists today.

 

Everything that exists is made of this. It is eternal, only the form changes.

 

the past cannot be eternal.

 

Correction.

The past cannot be locally eternal.

 

If our observable universe did originate with the Big Bang event, then we can agree that our observable universe can be no more 13.7 billion years old, yes? Fine. Then that is all you can confidently say on this matter. Our local universe cannot be past eternal.

 

But if what we see (the observable universe) is just part of a much greater cosmic whole, then all bets are off when it comes to statements like, 'the past cannot be eternal'. You simply have no grounds for making that statement for anything else than the one data sample we have - our observed universe.

 

 

that makes no difference at all. First of all, there is a common agreement that time began with the big bang. but lets assume that were not the case, and time existed prior the big bang.

 

No need to assume that.

I've covered all that I need to when I wrote about the size of your data sample. Since your data sample is only this observed universe, all you can positively say is that the past cannot be eternal in our LOCALITY... which is the observable universe.

You cannot say anything more and if you do hold to BBT, then you are required to also support it's logical conclusions.

Specifically, that what we see LOCALLY is not all that there is.

 

If there is more to reality than what we can see, all you can say about our LOCAL reality is that it cannot be past eternal. Anything else is conjecture on your part.

 

http://www.hoshuha.c.../existence.html

 

 

..if the universe...is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed--one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before--in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point--for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point--or any point before it.

 

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite...1

That's why the universe can't be infinite: if time is infinite, then sequential events cannot occur. So option one is not an option, after all.

 

This philosophical chicanery can only be applied to our only available data - our observed universe. Since our observed universe cannot be all that there is (according to Inflationary physics, the lynchpin of BBT) , it only applies to a microscopic portion of reality.

 

 

 

 

That is why I've corrected you and clarified your statement to apply only to our observable universe - which is all that you can speak about. It is this (deliberately?) imprecise use of terminology that I caught you out on, earlier in this thread. Once your statement is corrected for it's misuse of language, your argument evaporates in a puff of logic.

 

i don't see your point. As long as time is constituted by a addition of parts, a infinite past cannot (LOCALLY) exist.

 

You just don't see it, do you? Or you just don't want to.

 

 

1.

 

The Inflationary Era was when the early universe expanded super-luminally (faster than the speed of light) and exponentially.

Therefore, the region which is observable by us can only be a vanishingly small part of a vastly greater and probably infinitely large whole. Since it's bad science and poor logic to look at a tiny fraction of 1% of anything and conclude that the remaining 99.999999999999999999999% of it must therefore obey exactly the same rules as the less-than-1% we can see, your argument has a major flaw to it. Specifically, your data sample (our observable universe) is impractically small for you to take it and make the sweeping statement that the past cannot be eternal.

 

you should not tell that to me, but to the big majority of scientists, which all believe our universe is finite.

 

I don't care what a big majority of scientists believe.

Instead, I've cited what Alan Guth, the originator of the Inflationary Model thinks about the size of the whole universe. If you don't want to accept that Inflation leads to an infinite cosmos, then just deny the Inflationary Model that's part of the BBT. Oh, but if you do that, you'll just have to dump the whole of the BBT! You see, the BBT doesn't work without Inflation and the BBT doesn't work if Inflation only creates our universe. Nope.

 

Sorry but Inflation AND the BBT go hand-in-hand to create an infinite cosmos. You deny one part and you lose it all.

 

I understand, atheists have trouble to accept this, but should the evidence not lead us wherever it is ?

 

http://thoughtlife.w...c-observations/

 

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

 

So?

I'm agreeing that our LOCAL universe and Time began with the Big Bang. You don't seem to understand the difference between our local, observed universe and the greater whole it inhabits, which is required by the BBT.

 

http://www.thekeyboa...%20infinity.htm

 

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

 

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

 

Correction.

Our universe is observed to be finite. That is not the same. Please use the proper terminology properly!

 

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

 

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

 

I have no problem with this and agree that a past-eternal LOCAL universe is not possible.

 

Where we are disagreeing is on the full implications of the BBT. If you accept the BBT you are constrained to accept that we currently inhabit an infinite ensemble of pocket universes, none of which are required to be past eternal.

 

So, can we drop the insistence on past eternity?

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured. According to the BBT, matter, space , and time where created at the Big Bang. this is supported by the big majority of scientists today.

 

Everything that exists is made of this. It is eternal, only the form changes.

 

the past cannot be eternal.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hey B.I.G.!

 

I just noticed this...

 

"the laws of thermodynamics apply ones the Big Bang occured."

 

Thats a typo of yours, right?

You meant to write, "the laws of thermodynamics apply ONCE the Big Bang occured", didn't you?

 

Ok then, so how are you applying these Laws to our universe?

Or, putting it another way, which kind of Thermodynamic system are you saying our universe is?

 

http://en.wikipedia....dynamic_systems

 

Open, Closed or Isolated?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

its a isolated system

 

Ok then, where's the boundary that 'isolates' our universe?

 

BAA.

[believeingod]

<div>

<br />

<p> </p>

<p>Whether you did or not has no bearing on the question, because the issue at hand is whether or not there is a fine tuner doesn't matter because obviously this "fine tuner" is not involved in the current operation of the universe or the lives of it's inhabitants.

</p>

</div>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>and you know this, how exactly ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<br />

<div>

So you say you believe in Jeebus when you really have no basis to believe that he is the fine tuner because you can't stake a claim that he is the fine tuner because it could be any manner of gods.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>yes, it could be any other god. </div>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<br />

<div>

No, we don't know the universe is finely tuned to life because we (life) adapted to the universe as it is.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>false. </div>

<div> </div>

<div><a href="http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god/" rel="nofollow" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(180, 32, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); " target="_blank">http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/05/13/does-a-fine-tuned-universe-lead-to-god/</a></div>

<div> </div>

<div>Collins makes a threefold “fine-tuning case” for God.</div>

<div> </div>

<div><strong style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">“How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500….Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.”</strong><br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); " />

<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); " />

The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet. Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.</div>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<div>

I'm curious why you quote Paul Davies (?), I am assuming you have read, "Cosmic Jackpot"? You realize Paul Davies is a proponent of the participatory universe wherein as we observe physical laws we ourselves fine tune them? I am not Richard Dawkins so ascribing my views as his just because I am an "atheist" is certainly an interesting choice on your part.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>that is just his deduction. the philosophy, he makes out of the scientific data. his personal views are irrelevant.</div>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<div>

But let's get down to brass tax. Explain to me your view of the universe and this fine tuner and how we can deduce it is your God.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>we cannot deduce its the god of the bible. the bible gets it however right, when recording in Genesis one, that God, thats the power, made, thats action, in the beginning, thats time, the universe, thats the space, and the earth, thats the matter. the bible got it right in the first verse, and presented all that we can describe that exists. Matter, time, space, power, and action. Herbert Spencer got that only in the 19th century, and it was a big scientific discovery, back then. </div>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

 

[MagickMonkey]

I don't think it happened by chance. I believe the universe is deterministic,

 

Fine, you agree chance is not a good explanation. Lets see if physical need, or as you call it, a deterministic universe is a better answer. In the fine-tune arguments are the distance of the sun from the earth, the moon from the earth, size of the earth crust etc. included. Alle these paramenters must be in a finely adjusted range, otherwise life is not possible. Is there a need these distances to be as they are ? Certainly not. Since the big majority of these parameters and distances in other galaxies and earth like planets do not permit life, since they are outside the right range to permit life.

 

just as a example :

 

to name only a few :

 

PROBABILITY FOR LIFE ON EARTH (APR 2004)

 

http://www.reasons.o...-earth-apr-2004

 

Probability Estimate for Attaining the Necessary Characteristics for a Life Support Body

 

....

 

 

I imagine these probabilities are based on very bad assumptions. Also, ultimately, our existence is a mathematical certainty. All the conditions that lead to our existence were present during the big bang. It seems as if part of the bad assumptions about a fined tuned universe is a narrow concept about what looks like. A thing or two being different might mean life AS WE KNOW IT wouldn't exist. Life as we know it exists because of the way the universe is rather than the universe being what it is simply for the sake of eventually suporting life. I like the water puddle arguement I heard from somewhere. The shape of a water puddle is a result of the shape of the hole it fits in. The hole isn't perfectly designed for the sake of being able to hold a puddle of that specific shape.

 

Also, consider this golf course though experiment. If you randomly picked a blade of grass in a golf course. Knowing only that someone is about to knock a ball out in that area, what are the chances that the ball will strike that particular blade of grass first? The chances are fairly astronomical. But, it's certain that one blade of grass will be the first blade struck.

[thesadclown]

Shit, if you are going to cut and paste, at least do it right.

[BrotherJosh]

and you know this, how exactly?

 

Evolution through Natural Selection means life will adapt to any given manner of life supporting planets. We've only just recently had the technology capable of finding and studying other planets, it's certainly an exciting opportunity.

 

 

we cannot deduce its the god of the bible. the bible gets it however right, when recording in Genesis one, that God, thats the power, made, thats action, in the beginning, thats time, the universe, thats the space, and the earth, thats the matter. the bible got it right in the first verse, and presented all that we can describe that exists. Matter, time, space, power, and action. Herbert Spencer got that only in the 19th century, and it was a big scientific discovery, back then.

 

Do you consider other religion's creation myth's as being equally valid? You say we cannot deduce it is Bible god so why can't it be any other religion's god? You do of course realize the timeline of creation as presented in Genesis is completely wrong, right? Along with the fact that there are two Genesis creation narratives? Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

[Ouroboros]

BellyGod, you have convinced me! I'm going to convert to Zoroastrianism.