Fine-tuning of the Universe for life

Originally posted by sonship

Trouble is, I have built PC's. I know my species can build millions of them, and millions of other similarly sophisticated devices. It is very easy to conclude that the PC owes its existence to something or someone else, because I have seen that happen dozens of times.

Yes, my son builds PCs too.

It is easy to conclude something or s ...[text shortened]... makes those PCs completely. I don't rob him of the enjoyment of his status to be able to do so.

No-one is saying "there is no creator because we don't like him". That's all in your head.

Sometime ago we talked about this analogy in the science forum: Thread 157218

Fact is that you are complicating stuff by saying that someone created the universe because then the problem simply shifts from "where does the universe come from" to "where does the creator come from".

Originally posted by sonship
Anyway, the main point, Fine-tuning of the Universe for Life as evidence for God on a Spirituality Forum, I think has been presented reasonably successfully.

Can you explain then why:
1. Nobody seems to agree with you.
2. Avoid answering certain questions - going to great lengths to side track the discussion.
3. Frequently resort to quoting at length things that are not disputed by anyone and do not actually support your case.

Originally posted by Great King Rat

No-one is saying "there is no creator because we don't like him". That's all in your head.

You can't deny that some voices in the conversation express that.
At least three probably four of your world renown Creator deniers - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris speak contemptuously about the belief in God as Creator.

Dawkins has reached entertainer status with his "The God Delusion" books describing God in extremely negative terms.

I might not say a man like Albert Einstein was so vocal in his negative references to a creating God. Possibly Stephen Hawking's older writings spoke of scientists seeking to "know the mind of God".

But your Dawkins, your Hitchens, your Sam Harris ... they make no secret of their utter hatred for the concept of a Supreme Being.

Sometime ago we talked about this analogy in the science forum: Thread 157218

Okay.

Fact is that you are complicating stuff by saying that someone created the universe because then the problem simply shifts from "where does the universe come from" to "where does the creator come from".

To repeat - to say that you have found the best explanation for something is not invalidated because you do not have the explanation FOR the explanation.

For me the problem is extraordinarily moot - (Where did the Creator come from?) when it comes to the God I believe in. I think I said before that this is like asking "Who is the wife of that bachelor?"

But all the monotheistic faiths - Judiasm, Islam, Christianity, would regard the question as nonsensical. God, by definition, would be uncreated and eternal, ever-existing and transcendent, the One bringing into being all things.

Even God could not have created God. And some of us also regard God as a being for whom a greater could not be imagined. So if God came from a greater than God, then by definition the product produced would not be "God".

Some of us regard "God" as a Being for whom a greater Being is impossible to imagine.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]No-one is saying "there is no creator because we don't like him". That's all in your head.

You can't deny that some voices in the conversation express that.
At least three probably four of your world renown Creator deniers - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris speak contemptuously about the belief in God as Creato ...[text shortened]... some of us, we regard "God" as a Being for whom a greater Being is impossible to imagine.[/b]

I think you'll find those three speak of the 'Biblical God' in contemptuous terms, and let's be clear here Dawkins doesn't need to describe the Biblical God in negative terms, the Bible does a pretty good job of that already.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Seriously, have you ever looked at the pale blue dot photo for a long time?? Your arrogance really knows no boundaries, does it?

Seriously, have you ever looked at the pale blue dot photo for a long time?? Your arrogance really knows no boundaries, does it?

That was not MY statement.

That was said by I believe Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson. He said it seems as if the universe knew we were coming.

And Dyson's religious convictions are difficult to pin point exactly. I have researched that and found him to be kind of maverick lone ranger who avoids easy characterization. Maybe he is in between a Agnostic and a Deist.

One Steve Paulson wrote:

But if you really want to start an argument, ask a room full of physicists this
question: Are the laws of physics fine-tuned to support life? Many scientists
hate this idea — what’s often called "the anthropic principle." They suspect
it’s a trick to argue for a designer God. But more and more physicists point to
various laws of nature that have to be calibrated just right for stars and planets
to form and for life to appear. For instance, if gravity were just slightly
stronger, the universe would have collapsed long before life evolved. But if
gravity were a tiny bit weaker, no galaxies or stars could have formed. If the
strong nuclear force had been slightly different, red giant stars would never
produce the fusion needed to form heavier atoms like carbon, and the universe would
be a vast, lifeless desert. Are these just happy coincidences? The late cosmologist
Fred Hoyle called the universe "a put-up job." Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson
has suggested that the universe, in some sense, "knew we were coming." - See more at: http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/we-are-meant-to-be-here-an-interview-with-paul-davies /#sthash.tZYBnqaK.dpuf [ my emphasis]

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I think you'll find those three speak of the 'Biblical God' in contemptuous terms, and let's be clear here Dawkins doesn't need to describe the Biblical God in negative terms, the Bible does a pretty good job of that already.

I think you'll find those three speak of the 'Biblical God' in contemptuous terms, and let's be clear here Dawkins doesn't need to describe the Biblical God in negative terms, the Bible does a pretty good job of that already.
R

That is a whole another can of angels. And if I pursue it on this thread people will say I am not sticking to the subject.

The three I refered to would not speak any kinder concerning the Quran's Allah.

Now there are 150 Psalms. Have you read all those Psalms ?

Would you be so stupid to suggest that in all those 150 Psalms of the Old Testament there are no expressions of God's - mercy, love, longsuffering, forgiveness, faithfulness, patience, kindness, goodness, truthfulness.

If you can read through all those Psalms and not see any wonderful attributes of the Bible's God then the problem must be with you.

This is the tragic thing hard core atheism does to people. You begin to call bitter sweet and sweet bitter. You begin to take darkness for light and light for darkness.

Are you also foaming at the mouth in contempt for Jesus Christ of the New Testament? Do you see yourself quite at home in the mob yelling "Crucify, Crucify Him !"

Atheism sure seems to destroy some people's conscience eventually.

Originally posted by sonship

Trouble is, I have built PC's. I know my species can build millions of them, and millions of other similarly sophisticated devices. It is very easy to conclude that the PC owes its existence to something or someone else, because I have seen that happen dozens of times.

Yes, my son builds PCs too.

It is easy to conclude something or s ...[text shortened]... makes those PCs completely. I don't rob him of the enjoyment of his status to be able to do so.

Even in the case of your son building a computer - you don't have to know exactly how he does it to appreciate that he can do it. You can observe the beginning - a bunch of parts lying around - and the end - a computer with enough functionality to surf the web and allow you to debate Spiritual matters on RHP.

My thinking that God could not have created the universe has nothing to do with whether I 'like' him or not. It has everything to do with what physics tells us - that before time begins, there can be no events happening. No doubt you will tell me that this is Supernatural, and laws of physics do not apply, which is a fascinating theory, but one which cannot be confirmed. There are no corresponding theories of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity to guide me there. We have no clue what rules govern the 'Supernatural', if it even exists.

I'll be happy to re-examine the possibility of a created Universe if someone can show me a way around the difficulties.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]No-one is saying "there is no creator because we don't like him". That's all in your head.

You can't deny that some voices in the conversation express that.
At least three probably four of your world renown Creator deniers - Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris speak contemptuously about the belief in God as Creato ...[text shortened]...

Some of us regard "God" as a Being for whom a greater Being is impossible to imagine.[/b]

A couple of problems with all that: I think what they would mean by not liking your god is the problem that the originators made up the idea of that god by instilling it with human attributes.

My contention is there would be no such set of attributes in a real god, a god that can make UNIVERSES would be somehow JEALOUS of humans? Come on, how dumb do think we are to belief such patent hogwash?

That is my main problem with the entire edifice of the Abrahamic religions, this idea that somehow this god is like humans.

That is utter poppycock.

It is SO convenient this story pops up a few thousand years back when what they really were after was a god that, once people were convinced of the apparent validity of the claims of such a god, was a stick used to control unruly populations.

For some kind of universe making all knowing god like portrayed in the bible to be real and to have human attributes is about as likely as me breathing in all the atoms in the air in my room. No, let me rephrase that, much LESS likelyhood for that to be real.

A god that can make UNIVERSES and also be somehow JEALOUS? That is such a human trait they should have thought a bit more carefully about that when they crafted your god. I guess it worked well enough for the time and to this day, not many people even CONSIDER the idea that a god would not have human attributes.

The very idea gives me a belly laugh but I can't really laugh because of all the negative consequences of the construction of your god. I don't think, for instance, Islam would have been invented if Judaism and Christianity had not been around before.

I think Islam was built as an excuse to fire up his warriors to battle which is the very first act of them as that religion started.

I would love to have a time machine where we could go back in time to when these first so-called gods were invented and try to talk some sense into those who created your god and the precursors in Egypt.

Maybe that would have saved the planet from untold misery that the Abrahamic religions have wrought on the world of humans.

Originally posted by sonship
Are you also foaming at the mouth in contempt for Jesus Christ of the New Testament? Do you see yourself quite at home in the mob yelling [b] "Crucify, Crucify Him !"

Atheism sure seems to destroy some people's conscience eventually.[/b]

I hate to ruin a good sermon with facts, but the people who wanted to crucify Christ? All mono-theists. Pilate, the only person who hinted that maybe they should not do it? Probably a Pagan (believing in several gods) or atheist.

Originally posted by sonship

I think you'll find those three speak of the 'Biblical God' in contemptuous terms, and let's be clear here Dawkins doesn't need to describe the Biblical God in negative terms, the Bible does a pretty good job of that already.
R

That is a whole another can of angels. And if I pursue it on this thread people will say I am not sticking to ...[text shortened]... fy, Crucify Him !"

Atheism sure seems to destroy some people's conscience eventually.[/b]

Foaming at the mouth?! What hilarious drivel.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I hate to ruin a good sermon with facts, but the people who wanted to crucify Christ? All mono-theists. Pilate, the only person who hinted that maybe they should not do it? Probably a Pagan (believing in several gods) or atheist.

Let's get back on the topic at hand.

I'll take the blame this time for responding to Proper Knob's distraction.
I think it went off when GKR said that my saying some people should not reject a Supreme Creator simply because it is distasteful.

I responded to that talking about some writers.
And Proper Knob chimed in.

So now we're back on Fine Tuning. Okay ?
FINE TUNING. I'll try to stick with FINE TUNING.

We should let the evidence lead us.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I hate to ruin a good sermon with facts, but the people who wanted to crucify Christ? All mono-theists. Pilate, the only person who hinted that maybe they should not do it? Probably a Pagan (believing in several gods) or atheist.

I hate to ruin a good sermon ..."

WHEW !

The FINE TUNING some people say calls for an explanation.

Others say "Ain't NOTHING tuned. What's the big deal?"

Still others - "It just appears that way because there are trillion other universes. Somebody had to be in this one."

Others say " Will you come to church with me this sunday?"

Okay. But what does the evidence point to ?
Someone seems to have CARED. And not only so. Someone seems to have timed it just right so that when we had the capacity to discover these things with our sciences, we also would occupy this slot in time with both our ability to learn AND notice the tuning.

Now Hugh Ross (some of the stuff he writes I like) says that even our position in the galaxy seems TUNED for us to be able to SEE the maximum amount of outer space out there.

If our position in the galaxy Milky Way was off by too much we would either have too much star light in the sky - a perpetual daylight OR we would be too enveloped in dark dust clouds.

Perhaps even our position in the Milky Way along with the time of our arrival is TUNED for us to be able with our science to WITNESS the rest of the universe to the maximum.

Now please turn in your hymnals to # 65.

Originally posted by sonship

I hate to ruin a good sermon ..."

WHEW !

The FINE TUNING some people say calls for an explanation.

Others say "Ain't NOTHING tuned. What's the big deal?"

Still others - "It just appears that way because there are trillion other universes. Somebody had to be in this one."

Others say " Will you come to church with me th ...[text shortened]... o WITNESS the rest of the universe to the maximum.

Now please turn in your hymnals to # 65.

Someone said that the fine-tuning argument is like a puddle saying to itself that the ground is perfectly shaped to contain it.

When I look at the big picture, I see that we have not yet encountered life outside our planet, and the life on the planet has had to earn its (temporary) existence in a struggle with nature. Still many parts of the globe are not habitable.

I think we must beware of bedazzlement with numbers on things like this. It's easy to say, "oh, if factor X was off by 0.0001%, there would never be life!" - but what was the risk of it being off by that much? Do you know? Does any of us know?

An answer would require knowledge of how likely each type of possible Universe is. To say we don't have that yet is an understatement.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Someone said that the fine-tuning argument is like a puddle saying to itself that the ground is perfectly shaped to contain it.

When I look at the big picture, I see that we have not yet encountered life outside our planet, and the life on the planet has had to earn its (temporary) existence in a struggle with nature. Still many parts of the gl ...[text shortened]... ow likely each type of possible Universe is. To say we don't have that yet is an understatement.

Did you read my previous post here where I posted the evidence chain for possibility of other universes? Maybe the threads when by so fast you missed it. Basically there are temperature anomalies in the CMB readings that show a circular pattern which they claim could be caused by another universe, probably another baby universe like ours when it was only a few hundred thousand years old, anyway the idea is it bumped into ours and left this circular pattern on our CMB.

Obviously that is speculative but if anyone else has another answer to the origin of a circular pattern like that in the CMB, they should write up a paper and submit it to a journal.

If that turned out to be true, it would open up a door on new physics, where our universe would have some kind of 'skin' that would be the fabric holding it together and getting bigger all the time and that other universes with their own 'skin' are thick enough in the cosmos or alternatively they may be a smaller number 'born' but close enough together, like baby birds in a nest, that they could jostle each other and leave marks on the CMB. It would indicate they COULD bounce together and subsequently bounce off with no lasting damage to either one.

Just seeing the circle of the pattern could tell how many universes you might encounter if you had one of those magical spacetime ships like Dr Who but able to get out of our universe completely and see a bunch of them bouncing along, maybe you could see 5 or 6 of the suckers from the outside.

Wouldn't THAT be a spectacle! Dr Who leaves our universe completely and from the outside he spies other whole universes so naturally he has to visit them, which of course his magic telephone booth is quite capable of....

It would have to have other features that would allow you to visit said universes without being subject to the local laws of physics, so you would have some kind of universal Faraday shield, so to speak🙂 that would keep OUR physics inside the Tartus and allow you to explore all the weirdness you would find in those other universes.

There are some theories about black holes being the generator of daughter universes where the physics is very close to the parent universe that spawned the black hole so perhaps in that Dr Who scenario the universes he would spy would be similar enough so he could visit them without being ravaged by say the speed of light being one mile per year or some such, the electron constant at 50 instead of 135 like it is here and so forth.

Instead, the universe he could 'locally' visit might have an electron constant of 134.9999 instead of 135 or something like that, or the speed of light being one meter per second faster in that one, close enough you could pop into it without being torn into bits by ravaging physics.

Originally posted by sonship
But what does the evidence point to ?

Yes, what does the evidence point to?
Oh no, instead of presenting evidence, you once again post quotes from other people claiming the same as you - without any evidence. In fact, most of what you quoted was someone saying 'if it wasn't the way it is, it wouldn't be the way it is, therefore someone must have cared to make it the way it is.' So where back to the already failed 'its special because it is' argument - that you have already admitted is wrong.