Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Since nobody knows the true volume of the universe, it therefore follows that nobody can cite any kind of Fine-Tuning argument about it with any kind of certainty.

 

I don't get it : what has one thing to do with the other ? Our solar system for example 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. Nothing of all that has to do with the expansion of the universe.

 

True knowledge of the universe's volume is needed to say if any Constant is universal or not.

 

ANY constant NO.... maibe one of the fundamental constants of the universe. But i still do not " get " the correlation of one thing, with the other.

 

 

Ditto for applying any math to arrive at a probability of life's existence. Simply stacking up the number of Constants or conditions won't work either, for the same reason.

 

Just one fine tune constant shows how improbable chance is.

 

 

http://biologos.org/...ns/fine-tuning/

 

"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned — as if prescribed by an outside agency — or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." — Stephen Hawking

 

 

Therefore, there is no case to be made for the Fine-Tuning argument proving the existence of a Fine Tuner, an Intelligent Designer or a Creator.

 

If it were that easy, atheists would not be desperate searching for explanations for fine tuning, coming up with fantasious explanations as the multiverse proposal.

 

It's simple, grade-school level math, B.I.G.

 

If you don't know the radius, diameter or circumference a sphere, then you don't know it's volume. It's therefore impossible to make any meaningful mathematical statement about anything within the volume. If the volume could be anything, then so could the probabilities.

 

Since you've just agreed that the volume of the universe is unknown to you, how can you then say that is factor or that factor is more likely or more probable? All probabilities are dependent on the volume in question.

 

When the volume is unknown, no reliable probabilities can be assigned within that volume.

 

Thus, the Fine-Tuning argument (which deals in probabilities) is null and void. Game over!

 

That help?

 

BAA.

[Astreja]

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else.

That includes your alleged god. You are not allowed to make an exception by just assuming that it "has to" be there.

 

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so.

Prove it, or STFU. Until and unless you can produce evidence to our satisfaction, I'm going to proceed on the assumption that you have no evidence, have no intention of looking for evidence, and have no actual understanding of how science works.

[Astreja]

Physical cosmology does not explain our existence. It explains the properties of the universe......

We are part of that universe. I am perfectly satisfied with what science has discovered to date, and I think that your attempts at "explaining our existence" with an idiot "kill to forgive" god are simply hilarious.

[mymistake]

http://www.everystud...es/created.html

 

 

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else. A book has an author. Music has a music artist. A party has a party-thrower! All things that begin, that have a start, have a cause to their beginning.

 

Consider the universe. Scientists once held to the "steady-state" theory, that the universe has always existed without beginning.

 

Cosmological evidence now refers to the "Big bang" as the point in time that the universe came into being. Our space-time-matter-energy universe had a distinct and singular beginning.

 

Since it did not always exist, but came into existence (had a singular beginning), then some other reality must have caused or created it.1

 

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

 

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?

 

It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

 

Yeah that is the one. If you are going to have God be the something from nothing then your argument defeats itself. Using magic, miracles or divine power doesn't solve the problem.

 

 

You have a doctorate in Quantum Mechanics or are prepared to quote someone who does? How can you so quickly dismiss <Stephen Hawking>?

 

Rather than go into why i dismiss it, i prefere you first expose, what exactly you understand about the subject, and why it convinces you, that through it, God is not necessary.

 

You dismissal appeared fallacious. If you are comfortable leaving it that way it's your call. Regarding Q.M. I am a layman. My understanding is limited to documentaries designed to explain it to the general public. I didn't say I was convinced by Hawking's claims. In fact I am not. I said it's a good answer. I can find no error in it except that it hinges on the idea that particle pairs can come from nothing and that random expansion can take place at the quantum level. If those ideas can be confirmed through experiment then I don't see how Hawking can be wrong.

[believeingod]

The best explanation for our existence is cause and effect subject to physical laws

 

how did these physical laws come into exstence ? beyond our universe, they did not exist.

 

 

 

and constants operating with uniformity upon matter and energy. Of course, this explanation is tentative, and based on current empirical evidence. Feel free to falsify it utilizing the same intellectual rigor and honesty upon which it is based.

 

you've not said nothing concrete, really......

[believeingod]

 

The universe is expanding, and could expand infinitely.

 

 

based on what scientific evidence do you base this idea ?

[believeingod]

All probabilities are dependent on the volume in question.

]

 

why so ? you have ignored my answer in regard of the fine tuning of our solar/earth/moon system. It has nothing to do with the dimension and volume of the universe.

And : since the universe is expanding, how could someone calculate its volume ? its not static, its expanding......

 

 

 

When the volume is unknown, no reliable probabilities can be assigned within that volume.

 

i still don't understand why you think its necessary to relate the over 120 fine tune constants to the volume of the universe.......

[believeingod]

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else.

That includes your alleged god.

 

Not, if God was not created, but exists since eternity.

 

 

 

 

 

You are not allowed to make an exception by just assuming that it "has to" be there.

 

its not making a exception. Since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something exists since eternity. It cannot be our universe, since it had a beginning.....

 

 

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so.

Prove it, or STFU.

 

I have already explained it to you. But it seems you prefere the ignore button. Be it then.....

[mymistake]

how did these physical laws come into exstence ?

 

That is not known.

 

 

beyond our universe, they did not exist.

 

You do not know that. It's just one of your many assumptions.

[believeingod]

 

 

You dismissal appeared fallacious. If you are comfortable leaving it that way it's your call. Regarding Q.M. I am a layman. My understanding is limited to documentaries designed to explain it to the general public. I didn't say I was convinced by Hawking's claims.

 

why have you presented it then, in first place ? i want to know what YOU believe, not what a or b or c thinks about the subject.

 

 

 

 

In fact I am not. I said it's a good answer. I can find no error in it except that it hinges on the idea that particle pairs can come from nothing

 

 

But thei still need a vacuum, which still is not absolutely nothing.

 

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html

 

John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

and that random expansion can take place at the quantum level. If those ideas can be confirmed through experiment then I don't see how Hawking can be wrong.

[believeingod]

 

 

You do not know that. It's just one of your many assumptions.

 

No, its obvious. If beyond the universe nothing physical existed, than the physical laws did not exist as well.

[mymistake]

why have you presented it then, in first place ?

 

Because Hawking's theory is a good answer.

 

i want to know what YOU believe, not what a or b or c thinks about the subject.

 

I think you are using a lot of assumptions that you cannot justify. Science doesn't have all the answers and that is good because, unlike religion, science doesn't need to pretend it has answers when it doesn't.

 

 

But thei still need a vacuum, which still is not absolutely nothing.

 

http://www.leaderu.c...docs/smith.html

 

John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 

That "principle" is one of those assumptions you can't justify.

 

 

 

If beyond the universe nothing physical existed, than the physical laws did not exist as well.

 

Where did you get that from?

[skepticalme]

 

The universe is expanding, and could expand infinitely.

 

 

based on what scientific evidence do you base this idea ?

 

The 2011 Nobel prize in physics was awarded to the scientist who discovered this very fact for making that discovery.

[skepticalme]

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else.

That includes your alleged god.

 

Not, if God was not created, but exists since eternity.

 

 

 

 

 

You are not allowed to make an exception by just assuming that it "has to" be there.

 

its not making a exception. Since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something exists since eternity. It cannot be our universe, since it had a beginning.....

 

Here you are making the same assumption that eternal must be negative infinity to positive infinity. Eternity means that something did not have a before. The universe fits that description. There was no 'before the universe'. Eternal could also be decribed as the totality of time, which the universe also fits.

 

It sounds like you are assuming that there was some sort of empty void that the universe happened in. This is not the case.

[agnosticator]

 

The universe is expanding, and could expand infinitely.

 

 

based on what scientific evidence do you base this idea ?

 

The 2011 Nobel prize in physics was awarded to the scientist who discovered this very fact for making that discovery.

 

Thanks, skepticalme.

Stop acting like an ignorant dumbass believeingod!!! Go look up the Nobel Prize winner's name for yourself!!!!

[skepticalme]

I don't get it : what has one thing to do with the other ? Our solar system for example 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. Nothing of all that has to do with the expansion of the universe.

 

You are making the, "glass fits the water" argument. Most of those parameters can have a wide range of values. The others are conditions we evolved to survive. Most of these conditions are far from ideal. If our solar system was farther from the galactic center there would be less risk of being wiped out by a supernova or a GRB. The Earths distance from the sun falls within a wide range of locations it could be. If Venus had a thinner atmosphere and mars had a thicker atmosphere both could have liquid water. Europa has TWICE as much liquid water as Earth. When life first formed on Earth, the moon was one-tenth its' present distance and a day was 6-8 hours. The needed minerals and water are amoung the most abundant substances in the universe. We can detect organic compounds floating in space. The compostion of Earths atmosphere has flucuated wildly over its history. The oxygen was put there by life itself. The ozone layer is inadequate, if you are outside long enough you get cancer. The magnetic field varies greatly and even reverses periodically. Jupiter doesn't attract all asteroids, in fact it causes most of them. The asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars exist bcause of Jupiter. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs came from this belt. The tilt of the Earths axis also varies. It wobblies like a gyroscope. Volcanic activity and earthquakes have also greatly varied. The thickness of the Earth's crust varies all over the planet.

[Astreja]

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else.

That includes your alleged god.

Not, if God was not created, but exists since eternity.

This has not been demonstrated. Furthermore, you have not provided any evidence that uniquely identifies the god of the Bible as this entity. The Deist god(s), the Norse gods, the Greek gods and all other hypothetical gods are just as likely as your imaginary friend.

You are not allowed to make an exception by just assuming that it "has to" be there.

its not making a exception.

Oh, yes it is. You are most definitely making an exception for your god.

Since there could never have been absolutely nothing...

Unsupported assertion: We have no data from before the Big Bang, but I think it quite likely that some form of proto-matter already existed.

...something exists since eternity. It cannot be our universe, since it had a beginning...

Even if this were so, no "intelligence" or sentience is necessarily required here. It might be a completely mindless quantum process that happened to cause a single occurrence of "1" in a zone of 0's, triggering some sort of chain reaction that flipped matter/energy "on."

I have already explained it to you. But it seems you prefere the ignore button. Be it then.....

Ignore Me if you want, but I'm going to reply anyway. As for your so-called "explanations," they explain nothing -- They're just primitive Middle Eastern woo-woo dressed in an ill-fitting lab coat.

[believeingod]

Because Hawking's theory is a good answer.

 

how do you know, if you don't even understand it ?

 

Science doesn't have all the answers and that is good because, unlike religion, science doesn't need to pretend it has answers when it doesn't.

 

neither did i make that assertion.

 

 

That "principle" is one of those assumptions you can't justify.

 

who brought up the argument, was you, in the first place.

 

Where did you get that from?

 

I don't need to get that somewhere. That is obvious.

[believeingod]

 

 

The 2011 Nobel prize in physics was awarded to the scientist who discovered this very fact for making that discovery.

 

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/

 

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was divided, one half awarded to Saul Perlmutter, the other half jointly to Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae".

 

where does it say, it was for the discovery of a " eternally " expanding universe ?

[believeingod]

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else.

That includes your alleged god.

 

Not, if God was not created, but exists since eternity.

 

 

 

 

 

You are not allowed to make an exception by just assuming that it "has to" be there.

 

its not making a exception. Since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something exists since eternity. It cannot be our universe, since it had a beginning.....

 

Here you are making the same assumption that eternal must be negative infinity to positive infinity. Eternity means that something did not have a before.

 

 

then it is not eternal.

[believeingod]

according to wiki

 

eternity (or foreverness) often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time.

 

Time began however with the Big Bang. Your assertion is therefore false.

[believeingod]

 

The universe is expanding, and could expand infinitely.

 

 

based on what scientific evidence do you base this idea ?

 

The 2011 Nobel prize in physics was awarded to the scientist who discovered this very fact for making that discovery.

 

Thanks, skepticalme.

Stop acting like an ignorant dumbass believeingod!!! Go look up the Nobel Prize winner's name for yourself!!!!

 

Its seems YOU are ignorant in regard of what they got their nobel prize for ?

[Astreja]

Page 10 of this train wreck, and still no credible scientific evidence from our visitor. *sigh*

 

B.I.G., why are you here on our site? It should be obvious to you by now that we don't believe you and we think that you have an execrable grasp of science.

 

What are you doing here? What is your point?

[mymistake]

Because Hawking's theory is a good answer.

 

how do you know, if you don't even understand it ?

 

It's an opinion rather than knowledge. I base that opinion on the part I do understand.

 

 

Science doesn't have all the answers and that is good because, unlike religion, science doesn't need to pretend it has answers when it doesn't.

 

neither did i make that assertion.

 

Correct. I made it.

 

Where did you get that (the laws of physics require a universe in order to exist) from?

 

I don't need to get that somewhere. That is obvious.

 

Also correct. You don't have to explain any idea you hold. You can make your ideas up. You can pull them out of thin air. You can fallaciously dismiss the greatest minds in science. You can think anything you wish. However you are the one left with shoddy ideas. If you are okay with that then it's none of my business. Understand that those with good explanations won't be impressed with your made up ideas.

[mymistake]

The 2011 Nobel prize in physics was awarded to the scientist who discovered this very fact for making that discovery.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/ The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 was divided, one half awarded to Saul Perlmutter, the other half jointly to Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae". where does it say, it was for the discovery of a " eternally " expanding universe ?

 

Right after the words "discover of the" and before the words "through observation of distant supernovae".

 

Six of one

Half a dozen of the other