Initial conditions exist, that everyone seems to agree on. But those initial conditions are the first frame, and moment, of what becomes THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And not only that, but sets the conditions for life, and a universe that we love, creations we find beautiful, and we PRAISE GOD. The entire universe serves this purpose. From the very initial conditions.
"I created jinn and mankind, only to worship me". Quran 51:56
Oh, Pluto, black holes, super novas and the void are so fine tunned for non life. There must be a non intelligence out there which designed it hahaha.
As stars supernova over a dozen of the heaviest elements are created in a process called supernova nucleosynthesis. Without these elements life could not exist. These elements end up getting stored in molecular clouds. The shock waves of these supernovae cause molecular clouds to collapse due to their gravitational instability, which transform into new solar systems.
...This is a great cosmic cycle that takes place all the time throughout the Universe.
Yes, the solar system that the supernova star gets destroyed, but not until after billions of years. The final result is more positive as many new solar systems are born.
As for black holes. They merge and form super-massive black holes, which bind galaxies together just as stars keep planets and moons in harmonious orbits around them.
...Supernovae and black holes are actually evidence for a fine-tuned Universe for life. Unfortunately many atheists don't realize this because they aren't well read.
How the former planet Pluto is evidence against fine-tuning is beyond me and the "void" you talk about doesn't make any sense.
Ah is that so? Well "Einstein"... then, i have bad news for you...because the universe is not fine tuned for life, its fine tuned to destroy itself and to die.
Recent scientific data suggests that life is built into the laws of physics — if true there will be no arguing with the notion that the Universe is fine-tuned for life.
...."because the universe is not fine tuned for life, its fine tuned to destroy itself and to die."
You keep rolling out bad argument after bad argument. Here you are invoking the Hitchens "heat death" argument, which is extremely poor. The argument basically states that the Universe is probably not designed/fine-tuned because if it were it would be a poor design because it ends up in ruins when it reaches heat death. The reason why this....
....argument is very poor is because it's basically saying that anything that does not 'endure forever' is poorly designed, which is absurd. Every single human artifact will eventually undergo complete annihilation, are they also products of poor design? Is my computer, television and car poorly designed? How about the LHC, space shuttle and international space-station? The Universe will last exceedingly longer than any of these things.
....There is no consensus amongst cosmologist as to when the Universe will reach heat death, but all will agree it won't happen for an extremely long time. Some say as long as 1^1000 years, which is a staggering figure.
Only very poor reasoning can lead someone to conclude the Universe is not fine-tuned because it only lasts that long and not longer or even forever.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
Hahaha... Philosopher of Science at Messiah University ... roflol! Good thing there are plenty of Christians giving tax-deductible donations to keep morons like this trying to bring us back to the dark ages.
(From the video, 4:27) "Its been said that any of the most important theories in theoretical physics can be written on a single sheet of paper, and this, I think, ought to be considered surprising." This man is an idiot. The entire purpose of language is to simplify complex concepts for the purpose of communication.
A reply would be that since the constants target different phenomena, the only common phenomena that gets inhibited by a change of any constant is life. but that's not true, because the only phenomena subsidiary to the others and that is actually targeted by specific constants is chemistry. the chemicals necessary for life are not the only chemicals that the constants allow, and most of them are not necessary for life.
The constants are not tuned 'for life' but for many things. Grossly speaking, some constants are tuned for GALAXIES, some for STARS, some for ELEMENTS, and some for CHEMISTRY. that's it!!! life would be impossible because life is subsidiary to these physical processes. is not like there is a constant that makes DNA imposible, or HOMEOSTASIS impossible. If a lot of people are invited to the party it doesnt mean the party was created for just one of them.
@hempartist420, I don’t look at the theory of intelligent design as magic, for all it does is assert that some phenomena are best explained by the involvement of intelligence, and I find this to be so in the laws of physics. If the fine tuning of the universe’s constants implies supernaturalism, so what? Why would you rather posit a trillion trillion plus universes to explain away the conditions of just one? Yes, the anthropic principle doesn’t prove the existence of a personal Creator.
@hempartist420, the evidence suggests that the laws of physics were deliberately manipulated in life’s favor, and that suggests an intelligent force that transcends those laws, perhaps you should review my reasons for concluding design as the best explanation for the universal constants. The image of a tuner governing a control panel with numerous hypothetical knobs serves merely as a comparison to how humans intelligently intervene in nature, but you’re free to anthropomorphize the Designer.
@hempartist420, it is rather spontaneously funny and disappointing that you feel that the in order to acknowledge an explanation as the most plausible, you have to account for the explanation. Such an unwarranted request would lead to an infinite regression, which would annul the edifice of science, yet another example of your anti-intellectualism at work. Instead of resorting to ill reasoning, it would be safer to subject questions of the Designer’s origin and whatnot to future inquiry.
@hempartist420, if it is impossible for the universe to have different constants, then why are secular scientists inventing a trillion trillion trillion plus universes just to account for the condition of one? Now, that’s hilarious! I mean what would be the point of abusing Occam’s razor to death if it’s impossible to have a universe with an alternate set of values? Of course, the next question would be, “Why must the universe be life-permitting at all?” And the lame answer is that it just is.
@hempartist420, the most I conceded was that we could not calculate the exact probabilities of a life-sustaining universe arising by chance because not all the variables will ever be known in any given situation. Using your logic, we could not conclude that the big bang event itself had occurred because we couldn’t repeat it. Scientists can determine the nature of the universe and its following repercussions on life by employing mathematical models with constants of alternative numbers.
@hempartist420, do you honestly believe that life could have evolved in a poorly expanded universe that yielded a giant fireball, without an energy source, or under gravitational forces that would crush all forms of advanced life, not to mention the hundreds of other finely tuned aspects of the laws of physics? Are you really that anti-intellectual, or just ignorant? How is providing a viable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants a sign of arrogance? Is that your argument?
@hempartist420, will you provide an unintelligent explanation for the anthropic principle, or are you going to remain an anti-intellectualist by ignoring the fact that a cosmic intelligence transcendent over the laws of physics is responsible for the remarkably delicate balance of the universal constants? If you abuse your language again, I have no choice but you leave you in the pity delusional state you are in. The fine tuning of the universe's constants is purely inconsistent with atheism.
@hempartist420, duh, scientist do not know the exact probabilities of a life-permitting universe arising by chance anymore than they know the exact probabilities of life itself originating by chance, because there will always be unknown variables. However, its ill reasoning to just observe this universal issue and conclude that all calculations are invalid. I already told you why the fine tuning of the laws of physics entails the involvement of a cosmic intelligence, so you must have missed it.
@hempartist420, the methodology is really quite simple: As the physical laws remain intact, scientists can manipulate the values of the universal constants and determine the aftereffects. For instance, imagine altering the gravitational force in the tiniest measure: All advanced life-forms would be absolutely demolished, planets just forty feet in diameter would attain gradational drags of a thousand times greater than earth, and stars would burnout too quickly for life to originate and evolve.
@hempartist420, just because you're ignorant of how scientists calculate such probabilities doesn’t mean they lack a basis for doing so. After all, I don't know precisely how biologists and biochemists determine that the odds of life originating by chance are good; would that be a legitimate objection to their research and calculations? No, I should either show more acceptable calculations, or prove that their calculations have no basis. I already told you the basis concerning the constants.
@hempartist420, so you’re not guilty of ad hominem bullshit? I’m nothing more than a YouTube cretin, right? That’s all you wanted to know, how I came to the conclusion that the cause of the fine tuning of the universe involved intelligence? I thought the problem was that scientists had no basis for calculating the probabilities of a life-permitting universe, my bad. Before I explain the reasons for my conclusions, remember that it’s still your job to account for the fine tuning naturalistically.
@hempartist420, I believe the balanced laws of physics were designed for the same reason that a computer device is, namely, that intelligence is required in finely tuning these instruments to achieve their purposeful function. The fine tuning of the universe’s constants was either due to natural necessity, chance, or intelligence. It was not the result of chance or natural necessity. Therefore, the fine tuning of the universe is best explained by the involvement of intelligence, and thus design.
@hempartist420, I used to think you were innocently prone to anti-intellectual arguments, but now I’m convinced that you’re an anti-intellectualist, a cherry picker of science. I’m sure you hail biologists who claim that the probability of life forming by chance is likely given the large number of planets, but you belittle physicists, astronomers, and the like who have come to understand that a life-permitting universe arising by chance is virtually zero. That’s very anti-intellectual of you.
@hempartist420, I am utterly astounded and disgusted by the stupidity of astrophysicist Neil Tyson, the speaker of the video in which you posted. It is pathetic that you had to waste five minutes of my life watching that sickening speech when all you had to do was condense it into a few comments. Why don’t you put Tyson’s arguments in your own words, do you have literary disabilities? Where in his rant did he explain away the infinitesimal probabilities of their being a life permitting universe?
@hempartist420, finely tuned doesn’t mean designed, rather it refers to an extremely narrow parameter in which the values of the constants must reside in order to produce a life-sustaining universe, and the best explanation of this is an intelligent causation. The lengthy list of scientists I mentioned acknowledges this narrow parameter of values because when the laws remain, they can mathematically alter its constants and their subsequently detrimental effects with respect to life forms.
@hempartist420, it’s funny, the only ones complaining that the universe is not finely tuned are the Internet cretins like yourself, not even the atheistic fundamentalist Richard Dawkins, just peak on page sixteen of his ‘The God Delusion’ where he concurs with astronomer Rees on the nature of the universal constants. Again, and I’m going to make this crystal-clear for you, the debate among the experts is not whether the universe is finely tuned, but on whether the design is illusory or genuine.
@hempartist420, where do you live, under a rock? Why are you so ignorant of the unanimous agreement among scientists that the universe exhibits fine tuning, such as Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, Edward Harrison, Sir Fred Hoyle, Leonard Susskind, Owen Gingerich, Freeman Dyson, Francis Collins, Vera Kistiakowski, Walter Bradley, Roger Penrose, Donald Page, Robert Jastrow, Hugh Ross, Arno Penzias, Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, John Charlton Polkinghorne, Martin Rees, Steven Weinberg, shall I persist?
@hempartist420, where are you getting your falsehoods? Scientists unanimously agree that the constants of the universe were finely tuned; however, they differ as to what caused this phenomenon. Have you been even listening to have I’ve said? There would be no energy source or a mere giant ball of fire had the values of the constants been slightly disarranged. Duh, so you won’t have any life whatsoever, except in your imagination. Oh right, you’re deaf.
@hempartist420, because we know, notice the keyword here, that masterminds intelligently tune complicated devices on a daily basis, it is totally rational to apply this knowledge and use of reasoning in order to account for the anthropic principle. The fine tuning of the universe was either due to chance, natural necessity, or design. The first two lacks plausibility and the latter prevails. As far as I know, you haven’t presented a case for chance or natural necessity, and for a good reason.
@hempartist420, sure, there may be an infinite number of possible reasons as to why the universe gives the appearance of design, such as an all-powerful peanut butter and jelly sandwich that naturalistically accounts for it, with no intelligence whatsoever. The question is what is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the laws of physics? Its definitely not a transcendent mixture of jelly and peanut butter encapsulated in two loaves of bread. So, what do you think is the best explanation?
@hempartist420, how does a mindless process produce specified constants that happen to bring about the existence of a life-sustaining universe despite the astronomical odds against such an occurrence? You have barely begun to answer this question; you’ve been arguing that the anthropic principle doesn’t need to be explained, yet you admit that the laws of physics look designed. There must be a materialistic explanation for this illusion of design evident in the universal constants.
@hempartist420, oh, give me a break. The constants of the universe appear to be designed because they were, just as a computer appears to have been designed. So you are inadvertently proving the point that the argument is not based on ignorance, but on the knowledge that the universe at least appears to be designed, however, you are indifferent as to what caused this appearance. I’d say this appearance of design was due to intelligence since that what we know it can do, and you say blind nature.
@hempartist420, I’m saying that because we naturally know that intelligent minds finely tune devices all the time, there's no reason to restrict this knowledge to the anthropic principle. The argument is based on what we already know, namely, that intelligent agents have the ability and foreknowledge to set the constants in a specified condition in order to allow life to originate and evolve. Thus, the anthropic principle is not a god of the gaps argument; it is solely based on what we know.
@hempartist420, how is the anthropic principle a god of the gaps argument? Are you serious? If your existence depended on a complex sequence of incomprehensibly unlikely coincidences, such as fifty professional marksmen missing you from six feet away, you’re going to say, “What an accident; it’s not like the executioners conspired to miss! Oh, that would be silly; a conspiracy of the gaps fallacy it would be!” What an anti-intellectual argument you got there. lol
@hempartist420, since when did I say I had a reason for believing a Christianity? For all you know, I claim to have reasons for being a theist, but not for Christianity. So why did you bring my religion in the picture? Does my position as a Christian somehow miraculously explain away the fine tuning argument for God’s existence? lol You should come up with a more intellectually satisfying objection to the anthropic principle before you object to my religiosity.
@hempartist420, if you want to know how Hawking calculated the probability of the universe expanding properly, then simply purchase his famous book titled, ‘A Brief History of Time,’ or check out Davies’ book called the ‘Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life’ or ‘God and the New Physics.’ There are literally tons of books written on this topic and how such numbers are calculated, and the scientific authors explain it better than I, nevertheless I can.
@hempartist420, finally, you never addressed Leslie’s story about the troublemaker making the absurd conclusion that his cheat of death from the aim of fifty expert marksmen firing from just six feet away was an accident. In the same way, to conclude that our existence is merely a happy coincidence in light of the anthropic principle is downright untenable, for the laws of physics bear all the earmarks of having been manipulated in life’s favor.
@hempartist420, you can complain all you want about the trivial problem of variables not yet known, but this is an argument from ignorance, as if some future, revealed variable will undermine the anthropic principle. It takes an excessive amount of faith to argue that one unknown variable will account for the hundreds of carefully balanced numbers that support life. When we calculate the odds of a coin landing on heads, we don't need to know all the unrevealed variables, such as the wind speed.
@hempartist420, the current scientific data tells us is that life’s existence hinges on a razor’s edge. As scientists study more about the nature of life and reality, they discover that the parameters in which life must reside become smaller. The known variables available to scientists today suggest that our universe was not the byproduct of a mindless, chaotic expansion of matter, but of an intelligent Agent. I'm going where the evidence leads, and it is currently pointing towards theism.
@hempartist420, you also seem to have another misunderstanding, and that is if there is any variable unknown to scientists, then there’s no possible way for them to calculate the probability of a life-sustaining universe arising by chance. Yes, not all the variables and parameters in which life must reside in are known, but they are continually being unveiled annually. However, this is not my main point, which I'll state in my subsequent message.
@hempartist420, you’ve misunderstood the illustration of the pillar of knobs that govern the values of the universe’s physical constants; it merely served as an analogy, not an actually proof that a tower of numerous dials controlling the type of universe it will generate. What the anthropic principle does prove is that the laws of physics were deliberately designed, since we already know that's what intelligent minds do, that is, finely tune devices.
@hempartist420, in the same way, the mere fact that humanity is here on this little, pale, blue dot, despite the astronomical and incomprehensible odds against such an occurrence, is evidence that there was a cosmic conspiracy to provide a habitat for intelligent agents. That’s how strange it is of you to ask for a case for God’s finger prints lying on the physical constants of nature; it’s like the troublemaker asking for a case that the marksmen were conspiring not to execute him.
@hempartist420, the troublemaker says, “Even if it were unlikely that fifty expert marksmen have happened to miss me as the target, nonetheless it still means that it was possible and the only reason I’m here to observe my executioners is because I exist in front of them all; a skeptic must prove that there was a trick behind the scenes in which they conspired not to kill me.” Uh, the fact that he’s still alive is evidence that he was never intended to die, at least in the eyes of the marksmen.
@hempartist420, call atheism whatever you want, it does not account for the anthropic principle. Duh! Of course, we are here to observe the universe! I’m not arguing about that. A philosopher by the name of John Leslie paints the following scenario: A troublemaker is taken away to be executed by fifty professional marksmen, and they shoot from six feet away and the target is still alive to observe his surroundings. I’ll explain the meaning of this story in the next message.
@hempartist420, you said, “…and I still said that you don't know the number just like all the astrophysicists in the world don't know that number…” In other words, astronomers and physicists do not have the right to determine the odds of there being a life-sustaining universe, because no one can do such tasks by numbers. Here's the problem for you: Scientists do know how to calculate these numbers and they know them now, and they don't fare well with an atheistic interpretation of reality.
@hempartist420, even Dawkins doesn’t have the nerves to boss physicists and astronomers alike about what they cannot do, for it is out of his realm of expertise, as a zoologist he knows for a fact that life is prohibited when the constants are imbalanced. Fortunately, the dials have been finely tuned to permit the origin and subsequent evolution of our existence. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have positive ramifications for atheism, yet you call me a moron for following the evidence where it leads.
@hempartist420, you are unwittingly showing your anti-intellectualism when you argue that Hawking, or any scientist for the matter, don’t have the right to inquiry about how the universe would have ended up had its expansion rate been slightly different, had the ratio between the gravitational and electromagnetic force been altered in the tiniest degree, or had the ratio of the electromagnetic and the strong nuclear force been increased or decreased, and their consequential effects on life.
@hempartist420, the same goes for the fine tuning of the laws of physics that are coincidentally in our favor despite the staggering odds against such a happening. The answer is not “I don’t know why the laws of physics seem to have design written all over it,” rather it is “Because the anthropic principle indicates that the universe had us in mind in the purposeful sense, the best explanation is that we were no accident until further discoveries prove otherwise.”
@hempartist420, oh, please. I didn't invent the numbers, the secular scientists did for the fifth time, such as Hawking, Davies, and Penrose, so the question is what is wrong with you and your anti-intellectualism? When a coin lands on heads a hundred times in a row, the answer is not “I don’t know how it happened naturalistically,” rather it is “Someone employed a glitch in other to achieve that net result of a hundred heads serially.” Please, enough with you anti-intellectual arguments.
@hempartist420, I don’t believe in a Jewish zombie that died for your sins and whatnot. You are clueless, especially when you cite the numbers 10^48, but turn around and say that no one can legitimately calculate them. If nobody has the knowledge to do such calculations in your view, you should probably not cite those numbers at all. Now, I know you have no familiarity with mathematics since you restrict the field from answering scientific questions, perhaps because you dislike its implications.
@hempartist420, like the case with flipping a hundred heads in a row, you should likewise conclude that there must be a trickster behind the scene with respect to the anthropic principle. We aren’t simply talking about improbabilities here. We’re also talking about specificity, which lies not in that fact that the universe is merely improbable, but the fact that it is life-sustaining despite the astronomical odds against such an occurrence. To conclude anything but design is anti-intellectual.
@hempartist420, if someone flipped a coin a hundred times, the result is going to be an extremely improbable sequence of heads and tails; no design detectable yet. Now, if the sequence was a hundred heads in a row, you would conclude that there must be a trick behind the scenes, because it is specified in that it landed on heads every single instant. So is the case of having a hundred heads in a row any different from the anthropic principle? No, since it is both improbable and specified too.
@hempartist420, so why did I cite Hawking? (1) To debunk the preconception that the calculations done in support for the anthropic principle are the byproduct of my religious preconceptions, but of secular and atheistic scientists. (2) To demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinism to account for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants, because you would never get a habitat for which life may originate and evolve had the universe not been finely tuned.
@hempartist420, it was relatively recent that Davies went on further to follow the evidence where it leads by concluding that intelligence must have been involved in the anthropic principle, thus, he’s not an atheist anymore. Hawking, on the other hand, postulates a trillion trillion trillion external universes just to account for the constants of one, despite the complete lack of evidence. And do you accept Hawking’s theistic calculations about the finely tuned expansion rate of the universe?
@hempartist420, you still have yet to account for the narrow values that our universe coincidentally took rendering it life-permitting. And why do you ask why I cited Stephen Hawking after he wrote a book about God being unnecessary in the creation of the universe when he had the same views before writing it? Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, accepted the immediate improbabilities of there being a life-sustaining universe, just as Hawking did, since that’s where the evidence pointed.
@hempartist420, Again, there would be no habitat for life to evolve in, as all scientists concur and which tells me you are not one, had any of the constants of the universe been different in the tiniest degree. There would be no stars had the ratio between the electromagnetic and nuclear strong force been altered in one part in 10^16, and don’t tell me life can adapt in energy lacking world. Again, there are many other coincidences and they weren't calculated by religious scientists.
@hempartist420, you are really ignorant of these findings, for even staunch atheist Richard Dawkins acknowledges these narrow parameters for which life must lie, and he even acknowledges that Darwinism lacks the explanatory scope to account for the anthropic principle, because he knows that there would be no habitat for life to evolve in had the universe not been finely tuned. That’s why Dawkins resorts to the multiverse hypothesis, which I thoroughly debunked earlier.
@hempartist420, and the odds of a life-permitting universe arising by chance was not formulated from my preconceptions, in fact, religious scientists did not have anything to do with these findings; rather the narrow parameters in which life must reside were discovered by secular physicists and astronomers, such as Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies. You are spewing out falsehoods and not verifying your claims. You should study these sorts of topics and their history more before talking about them.
@hempartist420, lol Now you felt the need to add two more anti-intellectual arguments. What’s really pathetic is that you feel the need to point out that the anthropic principle does not prove a particular God, and I never said it did. That’s really odd since I never made such a claim about it proving a particular God. And if the anthropic principle is proof for God’s existence, you should not be an atheist, and that’s what we’re talking about, not the Bible. Yes, pathetic, on your behalf.
@hempartist420, no, but I think your objection to the anthropic principle is anti-intellectual, though. I understand it, and because I do, I know that it doesn't account for the infinitesimal probabilities of there being a life-permitting universe at all. The universe is finely tuned in this sense: Had the ratio between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force been off balanced by one part in 10^40, there would be no energy source for life to evolve. There are other coincidences too.
@hempartist420, *sigh* There would be no universe for life to adapt to had the constants been altered in the tiniest measure. Frankly, I’m finding these atheistic refutations to the fine tuning argument for God’s existence very anti-intellectual. Anyone feel me?
'Tuned' implies a tuner. That's the only thing I don't like about this video. I personally am a fan of the multiverse theory, where our universe is a bubble in a foam of other universes, each with their constants slightly different. This is of course purely speculation at this point in time, but I think that's more likely than a being which exists with consciousness, that is undetectable, and all-powerful. It doesn't add up for me.
@rawssremix, undetectable is the multiverse hypothesis. Oh, and it is allegedly all-powerful since it can readily account for anything remotely improbable or seemingly designed entities. Perhaps the fine tuning of the universe’s constants seems finely tuned to the most incomprehensible degree because it was finely tuned by a cosmic intelligence.
@rawssremix, you are invoking the nature of the gaps. Since there’s a seemingly designed entity, you must invent a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion plus universes just to account for the physical laws of just one despite that fact that it only takes one consciousness Being to do the job. The multiverse hypothesis is an insult to Occam’s razor.
@austinmckenzie69 A conscious being takes a hell of a lot of explanation. Timeless immaterial intangible consciousness that just exists? To me, that sounds crazy (just my opinion), and a lot, lot more complex than the multiverse theory. We haven't even explained human consciousness yet, which is material, timely and physical. So how do we hope to explain the complexity of an immaterial, intangible consciousness? Besides, where did that consciousness arise from?
@rawssremix, wait, you’re asking me where this consciousness originated from without applying the same inquiry to the multiverse hypothesis? That’s odd, since one doesn’t need an explanation for the explanation in order to acknowledge that it is the best. If you wish to use this ill reasoning consistently, use it against the multiverse hypothesis and you just might see the absurdness of such an objection.
@rawssremix, if we haven’t explained consciousness yet, then who are you to call it physical, timely, and material? If it was, then surely we would have found a mysterious particle that accounts for consciousness like smoke molecules resulting from a fire. You should be at least agnostic with respect to the nature of consciousness.
@rawssremix, wait, one entity, namely, God, requires an explanation, but a trillion trillion trillion trillion plus entities does not, that is, the multiverse? That’s laughable. A multiverse that is finely tuned to produce trillions upon trillions of universes with alternative values and constants endlessly that just exists? It seems that this multiverse thingy would require a fine Tuner in order to create universes with differing values ad infinitum.
@rawssremix, the God hypothesis is a remarkably simple entity consisting of no individual parts and is, yes, immaterial! That is precisely one of the reasons why it is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis, for it does not violate Occam’s razor to the silliest degree. The mind that finely tuned the universe’s constants must be transcendent of the laws of physics in order to manipulate those values, and thus immateriality is a likely characteristic of that mind.
@rawssremix, is the multiverse immaterial? Probably not, since it seems to consist of an infinite number of parts, and each universe it produces is supposedly material like ours. Look, you are free to place your faith in the idea that a single Mind is more complex than a trillion trillion trillion trillion plus universes, but I don’t have enough faith to do that.
@rawssremix, but let’s suppose that the intelligence responsible for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants is complex. It is surely less complex than a trillion trillion trillion trillion plus universes that were developed from a universe-making machine that spouts them out with random values and constants. Oh, and two more points: (1) Occam’s razor is not the sole basis for determining the best explanation for a given phenomena, and (2) you seem to have a misconception of it.
@rawssremix, to reiterate the first point, again, perhaps the universe’s constants appear to be designed because they were! When you posit without any evidence that there exist an infinite number of universe apart from our's, you are not following the evidence where it leads, you are following your prejudices against intelligent causes.
@austinmckenzie69 Isn't it prejudice to think we are the reason for the entire universe? Perhaps a creator exists but does that mean it is personal or has a mind like us? I don't believe there is an obvious answer since the posit of a God creates many assumptions and beliefs that don't have any basis in our world much like the accusation that extreme amounts of chance cannot allow for something favorable to happen in the case of the multi-verse.
@RuinSonic, it is not prejudicial to conclude design if that’s where the evidence points. As Robert Augros and George Stanciu put it after examining the coincidences of the values that the laws of physics took, "A universe aiming at the production of man implies a mind directing it… Though man is not at the physical center of the universe, he appears to be at the center of its purpose." Humanity’s existence was either purposeful or it was accidental, and the evidence points toward the former.
@RuinSonic, from a design theorist’s perspective, it is rational to make deistic conclusions, but one might question your integrity for truth if you were to posit a flying spaghetti monster. From a Christian standpoint, I believe that the Creator has intervened with humanity on numerous occasions and still does, but that’s a topic of another debate. If you’re postulating the existence of a transcendent Mind behind the universal constants, I don’t see this as multiplying assumptions beyond need.
@RuinSonic, I spoke lengthily about the multiverse and how it compares with the God hypothesis about a month ago on this same forum, so I recommend that you review my reasons for dismissing a world ensemble if possible. I find it rather strange and unlikely that the apparent purposefulness of the universe is illusory conjured up by an inaccessible mother universe or whatever, because it’s okay to believe so when there’s proof for an unfathomable number of universes, but there is no evidence.
@RuinSonic, why believe that the fine tuning was due to an accident of an enormous collection of other universes when there’s no evidence? I could see why one would conclude design because, well, the universe’s constants exhibit the patterns of intelligence. It seems like the multiverse hypothesis is a prejudicial conclusion not based on the evidence, but upon preconceived ideas about the purposelessness of the universe itself. How many assumptions flow from the multiverse hypothesis?
@rawssremix, to reiterate the second point, here’s the Oxford definition of Occam’s razor: “…the principle that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.” How many assumptions does the God hypothesis make? Not many, for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants imply a fine Tuner; this isn’t an assumption, it is a natural extrapolation of what we already know intelligent minds do.
@austinmckenzie69 But isn't proposing a God pushing the problem back one step? For example if someone asks me why I exist and I saw I was born by my mother and father through natural processes that only moves the question back one step. Where did they come from? Because my mother and father are subject to the same kind of question. If you ask why is there order in the universe and you propose God, who is very ordered and intelligible and spectacular indeed, we've pushed it back one step.
@RuinSonic, we can agree that there’s a biological explanation for reproduction, however, what if one discovered this process before finding out how humanity itself arose. Should we say, “Well, all you’re doing to pushing the question backward, so you’re incredible research on human embryology and whatnot is not really the best explanation.” Of course, it is the best explanation regardless of where the question moves or stays, for the scientist doesn’t need to explain the explanation.
@RuinSonic, in the same way, we do not need an explanation for the existence of a cosmic intelligence to know that design is the best explanation for the anthropic principle. Like the question of humanity’s ultimate origin, we can leave such questions of the Designer’s origin to further inquiry, but these inquiries shouldn't stop us from concluding design anymore than ones about the birth of the human race should stop us from naturally understanding the process of sexual reproduction.
@RuinSonic, why would anyone pick the multiverse over the theory of intelligent design has never satisfied me. I mean, who in the world postulates the existence of trillions upon quadrillions plus universes just to account for the features of just one when the intelligent intervention of a single Agent will do the job? The multiverse hypothesis seems to be the preferred hypothesis due to a prior commitment to naturalism, but that would not be following the evidence where it leads.
@MrJesusinuislife First off there's fields in physics such as quantum mechanics that have ideas independently that there may be many universes. Second it's very feasible to imagine more than one universe if ours can exist.
And about the fact of quantity. I think quantity isn't as big of an issue as you make it out to be although it's so huge it seems amazing to our minds. If we couldn't count the number of germs I don't think it'd be extraordinary to posit trillions of them instead of a few.
@RuinSonic, because the theoretic physicist’s incertitude surrounding the mathematical determination of individual types of outcomes and measurements of particular numbers, he or she can only settle such quantities in concepts of probabilities. When a certain net result yields multiple results consisting of different probabilities, it is interpreted that each spontaneously occurs, hence, the multiverse. I find this line of reasoning highly speculative, yet I'm open to further research on here.
@MrJesusinuislife "I find this line of reasoning highly speculative, yet I'm open to further research on here."
I really don't feel like I know enough to really comment on it other than saying it does seem to be speculative currently. I think some questions may never be fully answered by science since science assumes cause and effect relationships between physical things while the origin of the universe or even life is an anomaly.
@RuinSonic, we will never know everything about the universe, but some explanations are currently better than others, and I think the theory of intelligent design tops over the multiverse hypothesis for now, since the evidence for a mother universe is scarce and the laws of physics at least exhibit the appearance of design. It’s evident presently that science cannot answer all questions, such as the ones about morality and beauty, so it was never meant to answer everything in the first place.
@RuinSonic, I do not disbelieve in the multiverse hypothesis; however, I think it is being abused when it is used to account for seemingly designed entities. Suppose you're playing a game with a friend who wins with a royal flush a dozen times in a row, and he said, “I know it seems like I’m cheating, but if we could only conceive of a world ensemble, it just might be so that we just happen to be in the universe where I draw a royal flush every turn.” You would immediately charge him as a lair.
@MrJesusinuislife "Suppose you're playing a game with a friend who wins with a royal flush a dozen times in a row"
Yeah but if we changed the analogy to the friend got 12 royal flushes in a row but his hands were tied behind his back and tons of professionals were monitoring the game along with a mechanical card dealer. Perhaps we would assume something else rigged it like a computer bug. Claiming God did it is like claiming your friend is the biggest Houdini. It's possible but unlikely.
@RuinSonic, if that were the circumstances, I’d conclude that there was an outside supernatural force manipulating the positions of the cards in the favor of your friend, but card magicians do tricks like this all the time, yet no one is going to hire professional detectives to investigate the stunt by tying the suspect’s hands together and whatnot. The point is that you wouldn’t appeal to a world ensemble even if your friend had attributed the unbelievable dealings to such a thing.
@RuinSonic, if your friend was tied up with an automatic dealer and monitors limiting his control over the cards and the royal flush came the thirteenth time, I’d still conclude that something supernatural was going on until proven otherwise. The point of my analogy was that you would have concluded that your friend was a charlatan, not that your friend was right about the world ensemble. You would believe that the cards were being intelligently manipulated, not randomly among other universes.
@RuinSonic, as a Christian, I embrace the multiverse hypothesis and I think it was the atheist anterior to the discovery of the anthropic principle that maintained that the universe is all there is and all there ever will be, as Carl Sagan put it. The multiverse hypothesis was only taken seriously when naturalists began to realize that the fine tuning of the universe must be accounted for, and, of course, they were willing to posit anything but design. Isn’t that prejudicial and unscientific?
@RuinSonic, I think you missed the point with respect to the number of external universes that must be granted to explain away the anthropic principle. If the odds of a life-sustaining universe arising by chance were one out of a hundred, then we perhaps could imagine a few or no separate universes. You see, the design theorist merely needs to posit one intelligent Mind to account for the fragile nature of the universe’s life-favorable constants while the naturalist has to imagine a lot more.
@RuinSonic, the quantity of universes does play an important role in this discussion whilst the number of germs doesn’t. If all you had to postulate was a few thousand unrelated universes, then your explanation would be granted more credibility, but we’re talking about more universes than the elementary particles of this one, and perhaps even more given all the narrow values that must be accommodated for life to thrive here. These other worlds are inaccessible, let alone observable for now.
@MrJesusinuislife "we’re talking about more universes than the elementary particles of this one"
So when exactly does quantity make such a big difference? Maybe it's more likely we are ignorant of the Theory of Everything or there's really fewer possible universes and that's why we come to all these crazy conclusions. But I think the issue for me is how does proposing a designer avoid the design problem? At some point you have to admit to a brute fact that something ordered is just there.
@RuinSonic, quantity itself makes no difference whatsoever, rather it is the number of assumptions you’re making that bothers skeptics, namely, that there exists not one, not two, but trillions upon trillions of universes just to account for the conditions of just one, and this explanation violates Occam’s razors in the most absurd degree. Why posit an indefinite number of universes to account for the constants of just one when one intelligent Agent can do the job? Why multiply the assumptions?
@RuinSonic, now, if there were sufficient evidence for an enormous amount of universes all interconnected, then we’d be talking about a whole new ballgame here. In the end, the quantity of universes or germs is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but it is the number of unwarranted assumptions that are being made beyond necessity that distinguishes the multiverse hypothesis from the theory of intelligent design. I really do not think you would believe that your friend was telling the truth.
If we had evidence for bodiless people then causing matter to come from nothing then we'd be talking about a whole new ballgame.
Honestly, I fail to see a multiplicity of something known to be a stretch of imagination. I'm sure if the invisible Big Bird was the only possible intelligent designer you'd think twice about other possibilities if the multiverse wasn't true.
@RuinSonic, Christians believe that God created two realms: Heaven and hell, and one could substitute the world ‘realms’ for ‘universes.’ Perhaps there are other created universes in which God inputted different purposes for foreign creatures. I find the multiverse hypothesis compatible with the creation model, but there just isn’t enough information available yet to make airtight conclusions. The delicately balanced nature of the laws of physics suggests that a cosmic intelligence intervened.
@MrJesusinuislife Back to answering your question. Why don't I pick intelligent design? Because it pushes back the question one step. God or an alien or whatever is subject to the same question I'm trying to answer. Either something ordered just exists as a brute fact or it was created from simpler things. If you decide to assert God is simple then it seems to be even more extraordinary just as a simpler computer doing the same computation as my computer doesn't need less design but more.
@RuinSonic, I find it strange that you accuse design theorists of pushing the question to the next step without apply this objection to the multiverse hypothesis. If you decide to assert that the world ensemble is simple, that makes it all the more extraordinary, just as a simpler computer that needn’t design. It seems that the design theorists can’t win in your book: If the Designer is complex, that pushes the question of complexity somewhere else and if simple, that’s too extraordinary.
@MrJesusinuislife "...without apply this objection to the multiverse hypothesis"
The reason God is different than the multiverse hypothesis, God is claimed to have no cause so your basically answering a problem of design or order with a being with more order who by definition doesn't have an explanation. With multiple universes hypothesis only pushes it back to an unknown. We don't know what complexity is needed for multiple universes, but we aren't claiming it's the end of all.
@RuinSonic, you’re problem is not with theory of intelligent design, but with the theist’s assertion that God is eternal. I never really understood this one since it was the atheist anterior to the triumph of science that maintained conveniently that the universe was eternal and limitless, so why can’t the theist attribute this characteristic to God? Why can’t you believe in a cosmic intelligence that pushes the question into the unknown? An uncountable number of universes sounds pretty complex.
@MrJesusinuislife My point isn't to say you are stupid to believe in God or that God is absolutely a ridiculous idea which some atheists think. My point is to say that if you thought God was a crazy and unlikely idea to begin with the evidence for God in terms of fine tuning or anything else wouldn't seem so spectacular. And to say God accounts well, or is a good explanation, for something doesn't really excuse whatever unlikeliness it has anymore than Santa Clause explains presents.
@MrJesusinuislife "An uncountable number of universes sounds pretty complex." Not any more complex than one being generated. Creationists use this reasoning on our brains. We have billions of neurons generated over a few millions of years seems spectacular. No, not really because one or two changes in a gene can massively change the quantity of neurons. What makes our universe more complex than your God?
@RuinSonic, in fact, hardly anyone believes that everything had a beginning as if it popped up into existence out of nothingness. Thus, practically everyone believes something has always existed, so what makes your position any more valid than theirs, unless you believe that something came from nothingness somewhere in the distant history of reality? Therefore, it seems that your objection lies not in the eternality of God, but in His personal nature, so why can’t a personal Being be eternal?
@RuinSonic, would it satisfy you if I said, “We don’t know the complexity of God,” or not? I recently debated my father on the complexity of God’s nature and we held contrary views, so it’s safe to say that no one knows with absolute certainty whether God is infinitely simple or vice versa. Do you realize how complex our universe is alone, and what does that tell you about the complexity of the mother universe? The sheer number of universes you wish to postulate should also tell you something.
@MrJesusinuislife "I recently debated my father on the complexity of God’s"
Atheists don't address the issue well to theists when they say who designed the designer or God needs to be complex. The thing atheists are really trying to say is if God is going to be an idea derived by nature, design implies designer, then he must also be complex. I think it's fine if you want to define God however you wish. I don't think it makes it any less crazy or in need of proof, in fact maybe more so.
@RuinSonic, a mother universe requires an energy source to produce baby universes, a birthing method, an ability to alter the universal constants, converting energy of inflation field mechanism that brings about the mass in this universe, and the correct fundamental laws emplaced, such as the Pauli-exclusion principle or the principle of quantization. An indefinite number of universes must be produced, and so it is improbable that a multiverse would have obtained all the right elements randomly.
@MrJesusinuislife But let me note that I think many universes is a reasonable idea even if God exists. I'd have to know more physics to say how many chances need to occur for anything we call special to occur. Of course any universe is unlikely. It's our prejudice towards favorable things, such as our existence, that makes us think it couldn't be by chance. Nature doesn't see us any different than any other possibility. I don't know if we should break the habit seeing as we are right so much.
@MrJesusinuislife Specified complexity is a term that just takes the complex things that serve a function or give a reason to us humans. These kinds of things don't have to be explained by design. IDers try to dodge the issue of God by proposing other things like aliens. But if we are going to take them seriously we would have to apply his criticisms against evolution to the creation of the creator. Why doesn't he just be honest and say he's trying to give evidence for God?
@RuinSonic, ironically, it was Francis Crick who hypothesized that extraterrestrials seeded Earth with life, and he’s no friend of creationism. Many design theorists are not only outspoken about their theism, but also their Christian faith. The problem is that when they do this, critics wrongly assume that it automatically rules out their theories by definition; design theorists acknowledge that religion is prohibited from the classrooms; they're quick to admit that it doesn't prove their God.
@MrJesusinuislife I don't rule out intelligent design. I just don't think it is a good explanation and I'm happy to wait for answers to problems in biology instead of introducing a gammit of other problems by proposing a designer. Especially since a designer would be subject to the same biological criticisms that we would be trying to solve.
@RuinSonic, humanity does have a tendency to elevate themselves, but remember that the anthropic principle wasn’t discovered until the 70s when scientists were beginning to realize that we live in a privileged universe. Sure, before that time people were saying, “The universe appears just right for us,” but it wasn’t proven scientifically until many centuries later. Nature is blind, so it doesn’t see anything, but we are different from other possibilities given that our existence is unlikely.
@MrJesusinuislife "it wasn’t proven scientifically until many centuries later"
I don't think appearances get proven by science and I wouldn't say theoretical tinkering with numbers counts as proof for what a universe could have been. It could be that this is the only real kind of universe possible. I'd like a TOE and multi-verse combo but knowing a little history of science answers don't seem to come so easy without introducing more issues. All answers have their own problems including God.
@RuinSonic, the idea that this is the only possible universe that could have existed is not taken seriously by physicists because the values of the constants are independent of the fundamental laws of nature. The theory of everything seems implausible because as scientists gather more information about the universe they discover more fine tuning, and so if this pattern persists, isn’t it possible that the grand unifying theory’s values must lie in a narrow range of values to be life-compatible?
@RuinSonic, the superstring or M-Theory, the most auspicious possibility for the theory of everything, predicts a domain of about 10^500 unique universes governed by the same laws of nature, meaning that our universe's values are not a necessity. If there’s no plausible explanation, such as a combination of natural necessity and the multiverse hypothesis, the design is likely genuine, and we’d have scientific proof that the fine tuning of the universe’s constants was the product of design.
@RuinSonic, the notion that this universe is the only possible one is a strong statement and requires proof, because it’s akin to saying that a life-permitting universe must exist as a brute fact, but why must it be that way at all? Why couldn’t it be by natural necessity that the universe simply must be life-prohibiting? Moreover, putting your prospect in the theory of everything or some sort of combination with the multiverse hypothesis takes too much faith, since the evidence is lacking.
@RuinSonic, all theories have problems, but it’s important to weigh them objectively, asking, “Does the reasons for accepting the theory outweigh the ones for rejecting it?” When weighing the claims of natural necessity and the multiverse hypothesis, I find them to be little more than speculation and faith-based. The theory of intelligent design might raise questions about the origin of the Designer and the like, but those thoughts do not override the explanatory power and the rationality of it.
@MrJesusinuislife "intelligent design might raise questions about the origin of the Designer..."
I agree that a designer has explanation power for accounting for the event. However, what is lacking is the mechanisms and the evidence of how something like this even could exist or do the magical powers it is claimed to do. Santa is a good explanation for my presents but a 3 year old that doesn't know how they got there isn't rationally justified in believing in it.
@MrJesusinuislife And I'm assuming your a Christian but that doesn't mean you cannot recognize how extravagant a God idea is. People take for granted how crazy the idea really is because we are so accustomed to it. I thought having zillions of universes was an idea too extravagant until I got accustomed to the idea and thought about how mind boggling other alternatives are as well. I just realized you had other comments and I will respond to them as well.
@RuinSonic, I am an outspoken Christian, and quick to put myself in atheistic shoes, but I feel that atheism is too simple, lacks the explanatory power, and requires a lot faith to maintain. If you were to raise this objection to the theory of intelligent design, the movement doesn’t identify the name of the Designer. If you wish to merely assert that intelligence was involved in tuning the values of the universal constants, you are free to do so. But unintelligent explanations don’t add up.
@MrJesusinuislife "I feel that atheism is too simple, lacks the explanatory power, and requires a lot faith to maintain"
How does not believing in a spectacular claim require faith? If your assuming that's because God has so much evidence then I wonder why Intelligent designers have so much faith against the mountains of evidence for evolution and God thinks they are special despite showing no objective evidence in answered prayers or distribution in saving people of different cultures.
@RuinSonic, actually, all of reality is frankly extravagant, such as the center of black holes, quantum mechanics, singularities, relativity of time and space, light being both a wave and particle, string theory, matter is virtually empty space, and now dark matter represents ninety-five percent of the universe. So, we shouldn’t be deciding truth based upon opinions about the nature of the finding, but on whether the hypothesis is the best explanation that accounts for all the data.
@MrJesusinuislife Actually extravagance does matter. That's the exact reason you were dismissing the multiverse hypothesis to account for the "fine tuning" of the universe. In fact that's the point of occam's razor. An explanation that makes the bigger assumptions and explains nothing more is likely to be false. Wouldn't you agree Zeus is a bigger assumption than your God? I know of at least one universe. I'm not positing things coming out of nothing by magical invisible people.
@RuinSonic, chance alone doesn’t signify specialness, but when coupled with specificity, we have something special. Its very unlikely for any pattern of heads and tails to occur, but what differentiates that from a series of heads? You see, design theorists are not only looking for complexity or chance, but also for specificity. If the universe’s constants were merely improbable, that wouldn’t warrant the conclusion of design, however, it is remarkably specified to produce life despite the odds.
@MrJesusinuislife I enjoy discussing with you and I think you and Epydemic are a breath of fresh air on you tube. Even for me, atheists are often the toughest to disagree with. I really am not sure there is no God. In fact I've debated with my self deism for a long time and I can appreciate the order of the universe and I don't feel satisfied with atheists who don't feel the need to take seriously that our universe is in a need for an explanation.
@rawssremix, how does the multiverse hypothesis fare with Occam’s razor? Not so well: It assumes that a universe exists apart from ours, then another one, then another, ad infinitum! It also makes the assumption that there exists enough universes to account for the infinitesimal improbabilities of a life-permitting universe arising by chance! Don’t you see the ridiculousness of postulating the existence of a trillion trillion trillion plus universes just to account for the constants of just one?
@austinmckenzie69 "The multiverse hypothesis is an insult to Occam’s razor."
How so? If something can generate one universe how much more complicated is it to generate more? Occam's razor is about adding assumptions or unjustified claims. God is way more complicated than any universe and has powers that are unlike anything we see in the universe. That demands proof much more than any amount of universes does. The multiverse doesn't eliminate God either. Many theists take it seriously.
@SteadeeB I don't think so. I think these videos are a little too long just to refute theist use of the fine tuning argument when a deist would be happy to concede God is limited, which would only prove their point to be talking about the fine tuning of the universe. In fact ID advocates are using his principle of goal or contrivance that we see done by intelligent beings to argue that there must be something similar for biology. The problem is (continue)...
@SteadeeB when something inneficient arises they can say God doesn't have to be perfect and if that doesn't succeed, which I've heard Demski argue recently, Evolution and common decent could be true but all we have to point out instances of design. In other words they could pick an choose which stuff may have come about naturally and which stuff must of come by design. Maybe our bodies aren't perfect but a few of the important "irreducibly complex" genes were put there by God.
@gamesbok No I wasn't aware. You can't disprove such a thing any more than you can disprove that you won't find a bunny low in the fossil record. The evidence for evolution makes it unlikely, but it's still a falsifiable theory.
@RuinSonic What I can prove is that irreducible complexity is to be expected in evolved systems. There is no principle by which 'designed systems' may be identified. Behe knows this is true, he's just being dishonest.
Muller, Hermann J., "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors," Genetics 3:422–499.v
@gamesbok Of course in that sense. I was thinking in terms of irreducible complexity had to do with truly no feasible way for something to be created incrementally.
To me the issue is like history. We take what we know today and deduce what could of happend. If we know of aliens or supernatural designers we could have criteria for evidence to prove that those things created us. However, since we don't the evidence strongly points to natural explanations.
@RuinSonic Behe has been searching for something that could not have been evolved incrementally for more than two decades, and still hasn't found one. He's tried Bacterium flagellium, immune system, blood clotting, and he's been defeated every time. Remember, to defeat him it's only necessary to show how it could evolve, not how it did. It's been known IC doesn't fit his purpose since Wilson was president., the guy's just dishonest.
@gamesbok Well that's how "intellectuals" in the creationist movement still think they have the upper hand. Since they already believe in creation from their beliefs or intuition, the burden of proof is on you to show evolution isn't impossible as it seems to be to them. The reality is the burden of proof is only necessary to support a theory and not to defeat any possible problems. Creationists are the greatest example of pseudo-skepticism we have today.
@RuinSonic The burden of proof on creationists is not to prove that evolution isn't impossible. Evolution could be possible, but not have happened if everything was created anyway. Creationists must prove that the Genesis account is true, which is impossible. But secularists have the same burden of proof. They must prove-not that evolution is possible-but that it all happened like they say: millions of years, apes to man, etc. Which they can't either. No one was there to observe it.
It's already been proven that the earth is at least a few billion years old and that evolution is true. There's nothing "secularist" about not-denying many years of accumulated knowledge from science.
The problem is ignorance and special pleading against the evidence. In any other field of science this kind of evidence would be accepted by everyone but the completely ignorant and some mentally ill livestock.
This has been flagged as spam show
Initial conditions exist, that everyone seems to agree on. But those initial conditions are the first frame, and moment, of what becomes THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And not only that, but sets the conditions for life, and a universe that we love, creations we find beautiful, and we PRAISE GOD. The entire universe serves this purpose. From the very initial conditions.
"I created jinn and mankind, only to worship me". Quran 51:56
Peace.
ParadoxEternal 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
ParadoxEternal 3 weeks ago
Oh, Pluto, black holes, super novas and the void are so fine tunned for non life. There must be a non intelligence out there which designed it hahaha.
Aguijon1982 1 month ago
@Aguijon1982 I thought you people all believe in Aliens. Also if theres a god. Who the fuck says he as to be perfect. Please get over yourself.
Lone432345 3 weeks ago
@Lone432345
I dont believe in god, dude
Aguijon1982 3 weeks ago
@Aguijon1982 I didnt say you did. I was asking a hypothetical question. Besides im Agnostic.
Lone432345 3 weeks ago
@Aguijon1982
Supernova's play an important role to life:
As stars supernova over a dozen of the heaviest elements are created in a process called supernova nucleosynthesis. Without these elements life could not exist. These elements end up getting stored in molecular clouds. The shock waves of these supernovae cause molecular clouds to collapse due to their gravitational instability, which transform into new solar systems.
revo1974 1 week ago
@Aguijon1982
...This is a great cosmic cycle that takes place all the time throughout the Universe.
Yes, the solar system that the supernova star gets destroyed, but not until after billions of years. The final result is more positive as many new solar systems are born.
As for black holes. They merge and form super-massive black holes, which bind galaxies together just as stars keep planets and moons in harmonious orbits around them.
revo1974 1 week ago
@Aguijon1982
...Supernovae and black holes are actually evidence for a fine-tuned Universe for life. Unfortunately many atheists don't realize this because they aren't well read.
How the former planet Pluto is evidence against fine-tuning is beyond me and the "void" you talk about doesn't make any sense.
revo1974 1 week ago
@revo1974
Ah is that so? Well "Einstein"... then, i have bad news for you...because the universe is not fine tuned for life, its fine tuned to destroy itself and to die.
Aguijon1982 1 week ago
@Aguijon1982
Recent scientific data suggests that life is built into the laws of physics — if true there will be no arguing with the notion that the Universe is fine-tuned for life.
physicsforme.wordpress(dot)com/2011/07/12/the-dna-code-is-life-written-into-the-laws-of-physics/
dsc.discovery(dot)com/space/im/origin-life-solar-system.html
ww w(dot)americanscientist(dot)org/issues/feature/2009/3/the-origin-of-life/1
....
revo1974 1 week ago
@Aguijon1982
...."because the universe is not fine tuned for life, its fine tuned to destroy itself and to die."
You keep rolling out bad argument after bad argument. Here you are invoking the Hitchens "heat death" argument, which is extremely poor. The argument basically states that the Universe is probably not designed/fine-tuned because if it were it would be a poor design because it ends up in ruins when it reaches heat death. The reason why this....
revo1974 1 week ago
@Aguijon1982
....argument is very poor is because it's basically saying that anything that does not 'endure forever' is poorly designed, which is absurd. Every single human artifact will eventually undergo complete annihilation, are they also products of poor design? Is my computer, television and car poorly designed? How about the LHC, space shuttle and international space-station? The Universe will last exceedingly longer than any of these things.
.....
revo1974 1 week ago
@Aguijon1982
....There is no consensus amongst cosmologist as to when the Universe will reach heat death, but all will agree it won't happen for an extremely long time. Some say as long as 1^1000 years, which is a staggering figure.
Only very poor reasoning can lead someone to conclude the Universe is not fine-tuned because it only lasts that long and not longer or even forever.
revo1974 1 week ago
One knows they have won a battle of logic and reason, when one's opponent resorts to personal attacks, threats, or physical violence...
Complaintdesk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
TatoSugiarto 6 months ago
The universe isn't "finely tuned" to suit us. We are "finely tuned" to suit IT!!!! Get it right, deluded creationists.
mouthyweasel 7 months ago
Hahaha... Philosopher of Science at Messiah University ... roflol! Good thing there are plenty of Christians giving tax-deductible donations to keep morons like this trying to bring us back to the dark ages.
tangelorajan 8 months ago
(From the video, 4:27) "Its been said that any of the most important theories in theoretical physics can be written on a single sheet of paper, and this, I think, ought to be considered surprising." This man is an idiot. The entire purpose of language is to simplify complex concepts for the purpose of communication.
deathtris 9 months ago
A reply would be that since the constants target different phenomena, the only common phenomena that gets inhibited by a change of any constant is life. but that's not true, because the only phenomena subsidiary to the others and that is actually targeted by specific constants is chemistry. the chemicals necessary for life are not the only chemicals that the constants allow, and most of them are not necessary for life.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
The constants are not tuned 'for life' but for many things. Grossly speaking, some constants are tuned for GALAXIES, some for STARS, some for ELEMENTS, and some for CHEMISTRY. that's it!!! life would be impossible because life is subsidiary to these physical processes. is not like there is a constant that makes DNA imposible, or HOMEOSTASIS impossible. If a lot of people are invited to the party it doesnt mean the party was created for just one of them.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@hempartist420, I don’t look at the theory of intelligent design as magic, for all it does is assert that some phenomena are best explained by the involvement of intelligence, and I find this to be so in the laws of physics. If the fine tuning of the universe’s constants implies supernaturalism, so what? Why would you rather posit a trillion trillion plus universes to explain away the conditions of just one? Yes, the anthropic principle doesn’t prove the existence of a personal Creator.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@hempartist420, the evidence suggests that the laws of physics were deliberately manipulated in life’s favor, and that suggests an intelligent force that transcends those laws, perhaps you should review my reasons for concluding design as the best explanation for the universal constants. The image of a tuner governing a control panel with numerous hypothetical knobs serves merely as a comparison to how humans intelligently intervene in nature, but you’re free to anthropomorphize the Designer.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, it is rather spontaneously funny and disappointing that you feel that the in order to acknowledge an explanation as the most plausible, you have to account for the explanation. Such an unwarranted request would lead to an infinite regression, which would annul the edifice of science, yet another example of your anti-intellectualism at work. Instead of resorting to ill reasoning, it would be safer to subject questions of the Designer’s origin and whatnot to future inquiry.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, if it is impossible for the universe to have different constants, then why are secular scientists inventing a trillion trillion trillion plus universes just to account for the condition of one? Now, that’s hilarious! I mean what would be the point of abusing Occam’s razor to death if it’s impossible to have a universe with an alternate set of values? Of course, the next question would be, “Why must the universe be life-permitting at all?” And the lame answer is that it just is.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, the most I conceded was that we could not calculate the exact probabilities of a life-sustaining universe arising by chance because not all the variables will ever be known in any given situation. Using your logic, we could not conclude that the big bang event itself had occurred because we couldn’t repeat it. Scientists can determine the nature of the universe and its following repercussions on life by employing mathematical models with constants of alternative numbers.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, do you honestly believe that life could have evolved in a poorly expanded universe that yielded a giant fireball, without an energy source, or under gravitational forces that would crush all forms of advanced life, not to mention the hundreds of other finely tuned aspects of the laws of physics? Are you really that anti-intellectual, or just ignorant? How is providing a viable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants a sign of arrogance? Is that your argument?
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, will you provide an unintelligent explanation for the anthropic principle, or are you going to remain an anti-intellectualist by ignoring the fact that a cosmic intelligence transcendent over the laws of physics is responsible for the remarkably delicate balance of the universal constants? If you abuse your language again, I have no choice but you leave you in the pity delusional state you are in. The fine tuning of the universe's constants is purely inconsistent with atheism.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, duh, scientist do not know the exact probabilities of a life-permitting universe arising by chance anymore than they know the exact probabilities of life itself originating by chance, because there will always be unknown variables. However, its ill reasoning to just observe this universal issue and conclude that all calculations are invalid. I already told you why the fine tuning of the laws of physics entails the involvement of a cosmic intelligence, so you must have missed it.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, the methodology is really quite simple: As the physical laws remain intact, scientists can manipulate the values of the universal constants and determine the aftereffects. For instance, imagine altering the gravitational force in the tiniest measure: All advanced life-forms would be absolutely demolished, planets just forty feet in diameter would attain gradational drags of a thousand times greater than earth, and stars would burnout too quickly for life to originate and evolve.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, just because you're ignorant of how scientists calculate such probabilities doesn’t mean they lack a basis for doing so. After all, I don't know precisely how biologists and biochemists determine that the odds of life originating by chance are good; would that be a legitimate objection to their research and calculations? No, I should either show more acceptable calculations, or prove that their calculations have no basis. I already told you the basis concerning the constants.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, so you’re not guilty of ad hominem bullshit? I’m nothing more than a YouTube cretin, right? That’s all you wanted to know, how I came to the conclusion that the cause of the fine tuning of the universe involved intelligence? I thought the problem was that scientists had no basis for calculating the probabilities of a life-permitting universe, my bad. Before I explain the reasons for my conclusions, remember that it’s still your job to account for the fine tuning naturalistically.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, I believe the balanced laws of physics were designed for the same reason that a computer device is, namely, that intelligence is required in finely tuning these instruments to achieve their purposeful function. The fine tuning of the universe’s constants was either due to natural necessity, chance, or intelligence. It was not the result of chance or natural necessity. Therefore, the fine tuning of the universe is best explained by the involvement of intelligence, and thus design.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, I used to think you were innocently prone to anti-intellectual arguments, but now I’m convinced that you’re an anti-intellectualist, a cherry picker of science. I’m sure you hail biologists who claim that the probability of life forming by chance is likely given the large number of planets, but you belittle physicists, astronomers, and the like who have come to understand that a life-permitting universe arising by chance is virtually zero. That’s very anti-intellectual of you.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, I am utterly astounded and disgusted by the stupidity of astrophysicist Neil Tyson, the speaker of the video in which you posted. It is pathetic that you had to waste five minutes of my life watching that sickening speech when all you had to do was condense it into a few comments. Why don’t you put Tyson’s arguments in your own words, do you have literary disabilities? Where in his rant did he explain away the infinitesimal probabilities of their being a life permitting universe?
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, finely tuned doesn’t mean designed, rather it refers to an extremely narrow parameter in which the values of the constants must reside in order to produce a life-sustaining universe, and the best explanation of this is an intelligent causation. The lengthy list of scientists I mentioned acknowledges this narrow parameter of values because when the laws remain, they can mathematically alter its constants and their subsequently detrimental effects with respect to life forms.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, it’s funny, the only ones complaining that the universe is not finely tuned are the Internet cretins like yourself, not even the atheistic fundamentalist Richard Dawkins, just peak on page sixteen of his ‘The God Delusion’ where he concurs with astronomer Rees on the nature of the universal constants. Again, and I’m going to make this crystal-clear for you, the debate among the experts is not whether the universe is finely tuned, but on whether the design is illusory or genuine.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, where do you live, under a rock? Why are you so ignorant of the unanimous agreement among scientists that the universe exhibits fine tuning, such as Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies, Edward Harrison, Sir Fred Hoyle, Leonard Susskind, Owen Gingerich, Freeman Dyson, Francis Collins, Vera Kistiakowski, Walter Bradley, Roger Penrose, Donald Page, Robert Jastrow, Hugh Ross, Arno Penzias, Lisa Dyson, Matthew Kleban, John Charlton Polkinghorne, Martin Rees, Steven Weinberg, shall I persist?
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
I can accept a loving intelligent creator who is going to save everyone! :D
LifeIsABigPuzzle 10 months ago
@hempartist420, where are you getting your falsehoods? Scientists unanimously agree that the constants of the universe were finely tuned; however, they differ as to what caused this phenomenon. Have you been even listening to have I’ve said? There would be no energy source or a mere giant ball of fire had the values of the constants been slightly disarranged. Duh, so you won’t have any life whatsoever, except in your imagination. Oh right, you’re deaf.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, because we know, notice the keyword here, that masterminds intelligently tune complicated devices on a daily basis, it is totally rational to apply this knowledge and use of reasoning in order to account for the anthropic principle. The fine tuning of the universe was either due to chance, natural necessity, or design. The first two lacks plausibility and the latter prevails. As far as I know, you haven’t presented a case for chance or natural necessity, and for a good reason.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, sure, there may be an infinite number of possible reasons as to why the universe gives the appearance of design, such as an all-powerful peanut butter and jelly sandwich that naturalistically accounts for it, with no intelligence whatsoever. The question is what is the best explanation for the fine tuning of the laws of physics? Its definitely not a transcendent mixture of jelly and peanut butter encapsulated in two loaves of bread. So, what do you think is the best explanation?
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, how does a mindless process produce specified constants that happen to bring about the existence of a life-sustaining universe despite the astronomical odds against such an occurrence? You have barely begun to answer this question; you’ve been arguing that the anthropic principle doesn’t need to be explained, yet you admit that the laws of physics look designed. There must be a materialistic explanation for this illusion of design evident in the universal constants.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, oh, give me a break. The constants of the universe appear to be designed because they were, just as a computer appears to have been designed. So you are inadvertently proving the point that the argument is not based on ignorance, but on the knowledge that the universe at least appears to be designed, however, you are indifferent as to what caused this appearance. I’d say this appearance of design was due to intelligence since that what we know it can do, and you say blind nature.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, I’m saying that because we naturally know that intelligent minds finely tune devices all the time, there's no reason to restrict this knowledge to the anthropic principle. The argument is based on what we already know, namely, that intelligent agents have the ability and foreknowledge to set the constants in a specified condition in order to allow life to originate and evolve. Thus, the anthropic principle is not a god of the gaps argument; it is solely based on what we know.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, how is the anthropic principle a god of the gaps argument? Are you serious? If your existence depended on a complex sequence of incomprehensibly unlikely coincidences, such as fifty professional marksmen missing you from six feet away, you’re going to say, “What an accident; it’s not like the executioners conspired to miss! Oh, that would be silly; a conspiracy of the gaps fallacy it would be!” What an anti-intellectual argument you got there. lol
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, since when did I say I had a reason for believing a Christianity? For all you know, I claim to have reasons for being a theist, but not for Christianity. So why did you bring my religion in the picture? Does my position as a Christian somehow miraculously explain away the fine tuning argument for God’s existence? lol You should come up with a more intellectually satisfying objection to the anthropic principle before you object to my religiosity.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, if you want to know how Hawking calculated the probability of the universe expanding properly, then simply purchase his famous book titled, ‘A Brief History of Time,’ or check out Davies’ book called the ‘Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life’ or ‘God and the New Physics.’ There are literally tons of books written on this topic and how such numbers are calculated, and the scientific authors explain it better than I, nevertheless I can.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, finally, you never addressed Leslie’s story about the troublemaker making the absurd conclusion that his cheat of death from the aim of fifty expert marksmen firing from just six feet away was an accident. In the same way, to conclude that our existence is merely a happy coincidence in light of the anthropic principle is downright untenable, for the laws of physics bear all the earmarks of having been manipulated in life’s favor.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, you can complain all you want about the trivial problem of variables not yet known, but this is an argument from ignorance, as if some future, revealed variable will undermine the anthropic principle. It takes an excessive amount of faith to argue that one unknown variable will account for the hundreds of carefully balanced numbers that support life. When we calculate the odds of a coin landing on heads, we don't need to know all the unrevealed variables, such as the wind speed.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, the current scientific data tells us is that life’s existence hinges on a razor’s edge. As scientists study more about the nature of life and reality, they discover that the parameters in which life must reside become smaller. The known variables available to scientists today suggest that our universe was not the byproduct of a mindless, chaotic expansion of matter, but of an intelligent Agent. I'm going where the evidence leads, and it is currently pointing towards theism.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, you also seem to have another misunderstanding, and that is if there is any variable unknown to scientists, then there’s no possible way for them to calculate the probability of a life-sustaining universe arising by chance. Yes, not all the variables and parameters in which life must reside in are known, but they are continually being unveiled annually. However, this is not my main point, which I'll state in my subsequent message.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, you’ve misunderstood the illustration of the pillar of knobs that govern the values of the universe’s physical constants; it merely served as an analogy, not an actually proof that a tower of numerous dials controlling the type of universe it will generate. What the anthropic principle does prove is that the laws of physics were deliberately designed, since we already know that's what intelligent minds do, that is, finely tune devices.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, in the same way, the mere fact that humanity is here on this little, pale, blue dot, despite the astronomical and incomprehensible odds against such an occurrence, is evidence that there was a cosmic conspiracy to provide a habitat for intelligent agents. That’s how strange it is of you to ask for a case for God’s finger prints lying on the physical constants of nature; it’s like the troublemaker asking for a case that the marksmen were conspiring not to execute him.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, the troublemaker says, “Even if it were unlikely that fifty expert marksmen have happened to miss me as the target, nonetheless it still means that it was possible and the only reason I’m here to observe my executioners is because I exist in front of them all; a skeptic must prove that there was a trick behind the scenes in which they conspired not to kill me.” Uh, the fact that he’s still alive is evidence that he was never intended to die, at least in the eyes of the marksmen.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, call atheism whatever you want, it does not account for the anthropic principle. Duh! Of course, we are here to observe the universe! I’m not arguing about that. A philosopher by the name of John Leslie paints the following scenario: A troublemaker is taken away to be executed by fifty professional marksmen, and they shoot from six feet away and the target is still alive to observe his surroundings. I’ll explain the meaning of this story in the next message.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, you said, “…and I still said that you don't know the number just like all the astrophysicists in the world don't know that number…” In other words, astronomers and physicists do not have the right to determine the odds of there being a life-sustaining universe, because no one can do such tasks by numbers. Here's the problem for you: Scientists do know how to calculate these numbers and they know them now, and they don't fare well with an atheistic interpretation of reality.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, even Dawkins doesn’t have the nerves to boss physicists and astronomers alike about what they cannot do, for it is out of his realm of expertise, as a zoologist he knows for a fact that life is prohibited when the constants are imbalanced. Fortunately, the dials have been finely tuned to permit the origin and subsequent evolution of our existence. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have positive ramifications for atheism, yet you call me a moron for following the evidence where it leads.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, you are unwittingly showing your anti-intellectualism when you argue that Hawking, or any scientist for the matter, don’t have the right to inquiry about how the universe would have ended up had its expansion rate been slightly different, had the ratio between the gravitational and electromagnetic force been altered in the tiniest degree, or had the ratio of the electromagnetic and the strong nuclear force been increased or decreased, and their consequential effects on life.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, the same goes for the fine tuning of the laws of physics that are coincidentally in our favor despite the staggering odds against such a happening. The answer is not “I don’t know why the laws of physics seem to have design written all over it,” rather it is “Because the anthropic principle indicates that the universe had us in mind in the purposeful sense, the best explanation is that we were no accident until further discoveries prove otherwise.”
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, oh, please. I didn't invent the numbers, the secular scientists did for the fifth time, such as Hawking, Davies, and Penrose, so the question is what is wrong with you and your anti-intellectualism? When a coin lands on heads a hundred times in a row, the answer is not “I don’t know how it happened naturalistically,” rather it is “Someone employed a glitch in other to achieve that net result of a hundred heads serially.” Please, enough with you anti-intellectual arguments.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, I don’t believe in a Jewish zombie that died for your sins and whatnot. You are clueless, especially when you cite the numbers 10^48, but turn around and say that no one can legitimately calculate them. If nobody has the knowledge to do such calculations in your view, you should probably not cite those numbers at all. Now, I know you have no familiarity with mathematics since you restrict the field from answering scientific questions, perhaps because you dislike its implications.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, like the case with flipping a hundred heads in a row, you should likewise conclude that there must be a trickster behind the scene with respect to the anthropic principle. We aren’t simply talking about improbabilities here. We’re also talking about specificity, which lies not in that fact that the universe is merely improbable, but the fact that it is life-sustaining despite the astronomical odds against such an occurrence. To conclude anything but design is anti-intellectual.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, if someone flipped a coin a hundred times, the result is going to be an extremely improbable sequence of heads and tails; no design detectable yet. Now, if the sequence was a hundred heads in a row, you would conclude that there must be a trick behind the scenes, because it is specified in that it landed on heads every single instant. So is the case of having a hundred heads in a row any different from the anthropic principle? No, since it is both improbable and specified too.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, so why did I cite Hawking? (1) To debunk the preconception that the calculations done in support for the anthropic principle are the byproduct of my religious preconceptions, but of secular and atheistic scientists. (2) To demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinism to account for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants, because you would never get a habitat for which life may originate and evolve had the universe not been finely tuned.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, it was relatively recent that Davies went on further to follow the evidence where it leads by concluding that intelligence must have been involved in the anthropic principle, thus, he’s not an atheist anymore. Hawking, on the other hand, postulates a trillion trillion trillion external universes just to account for the constants of one, despite the complete lack of evidence. And do you accept Hawking’s theistic calculations about the finely tuned expansion rate of the universe?
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, you still have yet to account for the narrow values that our universe coincidentally took rendering it life-permitting. And why do you ask why I cited Stephen Hawking after he wrote a book about God being unnecessary in the creation of the universe when he had the same views before writing it? Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, accepted the immediate improbabilities of there being a life-sustaining universe, just as Hawking did, since that’s where the evidence pointed.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, Again, there would be no habitat for life to evolve in, as all scientists concur and which tells me you are not one, had any of the constants of the universe been different in the tiniest degree. There would be no stars had the ratio between the electromagnetic and nuclear strong force been altered in one part in 10^16, and don’t tell me life can adapt in energy lacking world. Again, there are many other coincidences and they weren't calculated by religious scientists.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, you are really ignorant of these findings, for even staunch atheist Richard Dawkins acknowledges these narrow parameters for which life must lie, and he even acknowledges that Darwinism lacks the explanatory scope to account for the anthropic principle, because he knows that there would be no habitat for life to evolve in had the universe not been finely tuned. That’s why Dawkins resorts to the multiverse hypothesis, which I thoroughly debunked earlier.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, and the odds of a life-permitting universe arising by chance was not formulated from my preconceptions, in fact, religious scientists did not have anything to do with these findings; rather the narrow parameters in which life must reside were discovered by secular physicists and astronomers, such as Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies. You are spewing out falsehoods and not verifying your claims. You should study these sorts of topics and their history more before talking about them.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, lol Now you felt the need to add two more anti-intellectual arguments. What’s really pathetic is that you feel the need to point out that the anthropic principle does not prove a particular God, and I never said it did. That’s really odd since I never made such a claim about it proving a particular God. And if the anthropic principle is proof for God’s existence, you should not be an atheist, and that’s what we’re talking about, not the Bible. Yes, pathetic, on your behalf.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, no, but I think your objection to the anthropic principle is anti-intellectual, though. I understand it, and because I do, I know that it doesn't account for the infinitesimal probabilities of there being a life-permitting universe at all. The universe is finely tuned in this sense: Had the ratio between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force been off balanced by one part in 10^40, there would be no energy source for life to evolve. There are other coincidences too.
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
@hempartist420, *sigh* There would be no universe for life to adapt to had the constants been altered in the tiniest measure. Frankly, I’m finding these atheistic refutations to the fine tuning argument for God’s existence very anti-intellectual. Anyone feel me?
MrJesusinuislife 10 months ago
'Tuned' implies a tuner. That's the only thing I don't like about this video. I personally am a fan of the multiverse theory, where our universe is a bubble in a foam of other universes, each with their constants slightly different. This is of course purely speculation at this point in time, but I think that's more likely than a being which exists with consciousness, that is undetectable, and all-powerful. It doesn't add up for me.
rawssremix 11 months ago
@rawssremix, undetectable is the multiverse hypothesis. Oh, and it is allegedly all-powerful since it can readily account for anything remotely improbable or seemingly designed entities. Perhaps the fine tuning of the universe’s constants seems finely tuned to the most incomprehensible degree because it was finely tuned by a cosmic intelligence.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 12
@rawssremix, you are invoking the nature of the gaps. Since there’s a seemingly designed entity, you must invent a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion plus universes just to account for the physical laws of just one despite that fact that it only takes one consciousness Being to do the job. The multiverse hypothesis is an insult to Occam’s razor.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 6
@austinmckenzie69 A conscious being takes a hell of a lot of explanation. Timeless immaterial intangible consciousness that just exists? To me, that sounds crazy (just my opinion), and a lot, lot more complex than the multiverse theory. We haven't even explained human consciousness yet, which is material, timely and physical. So how do we hope to explain the complexity of an immaterial, intangible consciousness? Besides, where did that consciousness arise from?
rawssremix 11 months ago
@rawssremix, wait, you’re asking me where this consciousness originated from without applying the same inquiry to the multiverse hypothesis? That’s odd, since one doesn’t need an explanation for the explanation in order to acknowledge that it is the best. If you wish to use this ill reasoning consistently, use it against the multiverse hypothesis and you just might see the absurdness of such an objection.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 5
@rawssremix, if we haven’t explained consciousness yet, then who are you to call it physical, timely, and material? If it was, then surely we would have found a mysterious particle that accounts for consciousness like smoke molecules resulting from a fire. You should be at least agnostic with respect to the nature of consciousness.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 6
@rawssremix, wait, one entity, namely, God, requires an explanation, but a trillion trillion trillion trillion plus entities does not, that is, the multiverse? That’s laughable. A multiverse that is finely tuned to produce trillions upon trillions of universes with alternative values and constants endlessly that just exists? It seems that this multiverse thingy would require a fine Tuner in order to create universes with differing values ad infinitum.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 6
@rawssremix, the God hypothesis is a remarkably simple entity consisting of no individual parts and is, yes, immaterial! That is precisely one of the reasons why it is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis, for it does not violate Occam’s razor to the silliest degree. The mind that finely tuned the universe’s constants must be transcendent of the laws of physics in order to manipulate those values, and thus immateriality is a likely characteristic of that mind.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 6
@rawssremix, is the multiverse immaterial? Probably not, since it seems to consist of an infinite number of parts, and each universe it produces is supposedly material like ours. Look, you are free to place your faith in the idea that a single Mind is more complex than a trillion trillion trillion trillion plus universes, but I don’t have enough faith to do that.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 6
@rawssremix, but let’s suppose that the intelligence responsible for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants is complex. It is surely less complex than a trillion trillion trillion trillion plus universes that were developed from a universe-making machine that spouts them out with random values and constants. Oh, and two more points: (1) Occam’s razor is not the sole basis for determining the best explanation for a given phenomena, and (2) you seem to have a misconception of it.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 7
@rawssremix, to reiterate the first point, again, perhaps the universe’s constants appear to be designed because they were! When you posit without any evidence that there exist an infinite number of universe apart from our's, you are not following the evidence where it leads, you are following your prejudices against intelligent causes.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 7
@austinmckenzie69 Isn't it prejudice to think we are the reason for the entire universe? Perhaps a creator exists but does that mean it is personal or has a mind like us? I don't believe there is an obvious answer since the posit of a God creates many assumptions and beliefs that don't have any basis in our world much like the accusation that extreme amounts of chance cannot allow for something favorable to happen in the case of the multi-verse.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, it is not prejudicial to conclude design if that’s where the evidence points. As Robert Augros and George Stanciu put it after examining the coincidences of the values that the laws of physics took, "A universe aiming at the production of man implies a mind directing it… Though man is not at the physical center of the universe, he appears to be at the center of its purpose." Humanity’s existence was either purposeful or it was accidental, and the evidence points toward the former.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, from a design theorist’s perspective, it is rational to make deistic conclusions, but one might question your integrity for truth if you were to posit a flying spaghetti monster. From a Christian standpoint, I believe that the Creator has intervened with humanity on numerous occasions and still does, but that’s a topic of another debate. If you’re postulating the existence of a transcendent Mind behind the universal constants, I don’t see this as multiplying assumptions beyond need.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, I spoke lengthily about the multiverse and how it compares with the God hypothesis about a month ago on this same forum, so I recommend that you review my reasons for dismissing a world ensemble if possible. I find it rather strange and unlikely that the apparent purposefulness of the universe is illusory conjured up by an inaccessible mother universe or whatever, because it’s okay to believe so when there’s proof for an unfathomable number of universes, but there is no evidence.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, why believe that the fine tuning was due to an accident of an enormous collection of other universes when there’s no evidence? I could see why one would conclude design because, well, the universe’s constants exhibit the patterns of intelligence. It seems like the multiverse hypothesis is a prejudicial conclusion not based on the evidence, but upon preconceived ideas about the purposelessness of the universe itself. How many assumptions flow from the multiverse hypothesis?
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@rawssremix, to reiterate the second point, here’s the Oxford definition of Occam’s razor: “…the principle that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary.” How many assumptions does the God hypothesis make? Not many, for the fine tuning of the universe’s constants imply a fine Tuner; this isn’t an assumption, it is a natural extrapolation of what we already know intelligent minds do.
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 10
@austinmckenzie69 But isn't proposing a God pushing the problem back one step? For example if someone asks me why I exist and I saw I was born by my mother and father through natural processes that only moves the question back one step. Where did they come from? Because my mother and father are subject to the same kind of question. If you ask why is there order in the universe and you propose God, who is very ordered and intelligible and spectacular indeed, we've pushed it back one step.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, we can agree that there’s a biological explanation for reproduction, however, what if one discovered this process before finding out how humanity itself arose. Should we say, “Well, all you’re doing to pushing the question backward, so you’re incredible research on human embryology and whatnot is not really the best explanation.” Of course, it is the best explanation regardless of where the question moves or stays, for the scientist doesn’t need to explain the explanation.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, in the same way, we do not need an explanation for the existence of a cosmic intelligence to know that design is the best explanation for the anthropic principle. Like the question of humanity’s ultimate origin, we can leave such questions of the Designer’s origin to further inquiry, but these inquiries shouldn't stop us from concluding design anymore than ones about the birth of the human race should stop us from naturally understanding the process of sexual reproduction.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, why would anyone pick the multiverse over the theory of intelligent design has never satisfied me. I mean, who in the world postulates the existence of trillions upon quadrillions plus universes just to account for the features of just one when the intelligent intervention of a single Agent will do the job? The multiverse hypothesis seems to be the preferred hypothesis due to a prior commitment to naturalism, but that would not be following the evidence where it leads.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife First off there's fields in physics such as quantum mechanics that have ideas independently that there may be many universes. Second it's very feasible to imagine more than one universe if ours can exist.
And about the fact of quantity. I think quantity isn't as big of an issue as you make it out to be although it's so huge it seems amazing to our minds. If we couldn't count the number of germs I don't think it'd be extraordinary to posit trillions of them instead of a few.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, because the theoretic physicist’s incertitude surrounding the mathematical determination of individual types of outcomes and measurements of particular numbers, he or she can only settle such quantities in concepts of probabilities. When a certain net result yields multiple results consisting of different probabilities, it is interpreted that each spontaneously occurs, hence, the multiverse. I find this line of reasoning highly speculative, yet I'm open to further research on here.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "I find this line of reasoning highly speculative, yet I'm open to further research on here."
I really don't feel like I know enough to really comment on it other than saying it does seem to be speculative currently. I think some questions may never be fully answered by science since science assumes cause and effect relationships between physical things while the origin of the universe or even life is an anomaly.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, we will never know everything about the universe, but some explanations are currently better than others, and I think the theory of intelligent design tops over the multiverse hypothesis for now, since the evidence for a mother universe is scarce and the laws of physics at least exhibit the appearance of design. It’s evident presently that science cannot answer all questions, such as the ones about morality and beauty, so it was never meant to answer everything in the first place.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, I do not disbelieve in the multiverse hypothesis; however, I think it is being abused when it is used to account for seemingly designed entities. Suppose you're playing a game with a friend who wins with a royal flush a dozen times in a row, and he said, “I know it seems like I’m cheating, but if we could only conceive of a world ensemble, it just might be so that we just happen to be in the universe where I draw a royal flush every turn.” You would immediately charge him as a lair.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "Suppose you're playing a game with a friend who wins with a royal flush a dozen times in a row"
Yeah but if we changed the analogy to the friend got 12 royal flushes in a row but his hands were tied behind his back and tons of professionals were monitoring the game along with a mechanical card dealer. Perhaps we would assume something else rigged it like a computer bug. Claiming God did it is like claiming your friend is the biggest Houdini. It's possible but unlikely.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, if that were the circumstances, I’d conclude that there was an outside supernatural force manipulating the positions of the cards in the favor of your friend, but card magicians do tricks like this all the time, yet no one is going to hire professional detectives to investigate the stunt by tying the suspect’s hands together and whatnot. The point is that you wouldn’t appeal to a world ensemble even if your friend had attributed the unbelievable dealings to such a thing.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, if your friend was tied up with an automatic dealer and monitors limiting his control over the cards and the royal flush came the thirteenth time, I’d still conclude that something supernatural was going on until proven otherwise. The point of my analogy was that you would have concluded that your friend was a charlatan, not that your friend was right about the world ensemble. You would believe that the cards were being intelligently manipulated, not randomly among other universes.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, as a Christian, I embrace the multiverse hypothesis and I think it was the atheist anterior to the discovery of the anthropic principle that maintained that the universe is all there is and all there ever will be, as Carl Sagan put it. The multiverse hypothesis was only taken seriously when naturalists began to realize that the fine tuning of the universe must be accounted for, and, of course, they were willing to posit anything but design. Isn’t that prejudicial and unscientific?
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, I think you missed the point with respect to the number of external universes that must be granted to explain away the anthropic principle. If the odds of a life-sustaining universe arising by chance were one out of a hundred, then we perhaps could imagine a few or no separate universes. You see, the design theorist merely needs to posit one intelligent Mind to account for the fragile nature of the universe’s life-favorable constants while the naturalist has to imagine a lot more.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, the quantity of universes does play an important role in this discussion whilst the number of germs doesn’t. If all you had to postulate was a few thousand unrelated universes, then your explanation would be granted more credibility, but we’re talking about more universes than the elementary particles of this one, and perhaps even more given all the narrow values that must be accommodated for life to thrive here. These other worlds are inaccessible, let alone observable for now.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "we’re talking about more universes than the elementary particles of this one"
So when exactly does quantity make such a big difference? Maybe it's more likely we are ignorant of the Theory of Everything or there's really fewer possible universes and that's why we come to all these crazy conclusions. But I think the issue for me is how does proposing a designer avoid the design problem? At some point you have to admit to a brute fact that something ordered is just there.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, quantity itself makes no difference whatsoever, rather it is the number of assumptions you’re making that bothers skeptics, namely, that there exists not one, not two, but trillions upon trillions of universes just to account for the conditions of just one, and this explanation violates Occam’s razors in the most absurd degree. Why posit an indefinite number of universes to account for the constants of just one when one intelligent Agent can do the job? Why multiply the assumptions?
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, now, if there were sufficient evidence for an enormous amount of universes all interconnected, then we’d be talking about a whole new ballgame here. In the end, the quantity of universes or germs is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but it is the number of unwarranted assumptions that are being made beyond necessity that distinguishes the multiverse hypothesis from the theory of intelligent design. I really do not think you would believe that your friend was telling the truth.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife
If we had evidence for bodiless people then causing matter to come from nothing then we'd be talking about a whole new ballgame.
Honestly, I fail to see a multiplicity of something known to be a stretch of imagination. I'm sure if the invisible Big Bird was the only possible intelligent designer you'd think twice about other possibilities if the multiverse wasn't true.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, Christians believe that God created two realms: Heaven and hell, and one could substitute the world ‘realms’ for ‘universes.’ Perhaps there are other created universes in which God inputted different purposes for foreign creatures. I find the multiverse hypothesis compatible with the creation model, but there just isn’t enough information available yet to make airtight conclusions. The delicately balanced nature of the laws of physics suggests that a cosmic intelligence intervened.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife Back to answering your question. Why don't I pick intelligent design? Because it pushes back the question one step. God or an alien or whatever is subject to the same question I'm trying to answer. Either something ordered just exists as a brute fact or it was created from simpler things. If you decide to assert God is simple then it seems to be even more extraordinary just as a simpler computer doing the same computation as my computer doesn't need less design but more.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, I find it strange that you accuse design theorists of pushing the question to the next step without apply this objection to the multiverse hypothesis. If you decide to assert that the world ensemble is simple, that makes it all the more extraordinary, just as a simpler computer that needn’t design. It seems that the design theorists can’t win in your book: If the Designer is complex, that pushes the question of complexity somewhere else and if simple, that’s too extraordinary.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "...without apply this objection to the multiverse hypothesis"
The reason God is different than the multiverse hypothesis, God is claimed to have no cause so your basically answering a problem of design or order with a being with more order who by definition doesn't have an explanation. With multiple universes hypothesis only pushes it back to an unknown. We don't know what complexity is needed for multiple universes, but we aren't claiming it's the end of all.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, you’re problem is not with theory of intelligent design, but with the theist’s assertion that God is eternal. I never really understood this one since it was the atheist anterior to the triumph of science that maintained conveniently that the universe was eternal and limitless, so why can’t the theist attribute this characteristic to God? Why can’t you believe in a cosmic intelligence that pushes the question into the unknown? An uncountable number of universes sounds pretty complex.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife My point isn't to say you are stupid to believe in God or that God is absolutely a ridiculous idea which some atheists think. My point is to say that if you thought God was a crazy and unlikely idea to begin with the evidence for God in terms of fine tuning or anything else wouldn't seem so spectacular. And to say God accounts well, or is a good explanation, for something doesn't really excuse whatever unlikeliness it has anymore than Santa Clause explains presents.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "An uncountable number of universes sounds pretty complex." Not any more complex than one being generated. Creationists use this reasoning on our brains. We have billions of neurons generated over a few millions of years seems spectacular. No, not really because one or two changes in a gene can massively change the quantity of neurons. What makes our universe more complex than your God?
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, in fact, hardly anyone believes that everything had a beginning as if it popped up into existence out of nothingness. Thus, practically everyone believes something has always existed, so what makes your position any more valid than theirs, unless you believe that something came from nothingness somewhere in the distant history of reality? Therefore, it seems that your objection lies not in the eternality of God, but in His personal nature, so why can’t a personal Being be eternal?
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, would it satisfy you if I said, “We don’t know the complexity of God,” or not? I recently debated my father on the complexity of God’s nature and we held contrary views, so it’s safe to say that no one knows with absolute certainty whether God is infinitely simple or vice versa. Do you realize how complex our universe is alone, and what does that tell you about the complexity of the mother universe? The sheer number of universes you wish to postulate should also tell you something.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "I recently debated my father on the complexity of God’s"
Atheists don't address the issue well to theists when they say who designed the designer or God needs to be complex. The thing atheists are really trying to say is if God is going to be an idea derived by nature, design implies designer, then he must also be complex. I think it's fine if you want to define God however you wish. I don't think it makes it any less crazy or in need of proof, in fact maybe more so.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, a mother universe requires an energy source to produce baby universes, a birthing method, an ability to alter the universal constants, converting energy of inflation field mechanism that brings about the mass in this universe, and the correct fundamental laws emplaced, such as the Pauli-exclusion principle or the principle of quantization. An indefinite number of universes must be produced, and so it is improbable that a multiverse would have obtained all the right elements randomly.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife But let me note that I think many universes is a reasonable idea even if God exists. I'd have to know more physics to say how many chances need to occur for anything we call special to occur. Of course any universe is unlikely. It's our prejudice towards favorable things, such as our existence, that makes us think it couldn't be by chance. Nature doesn't see us any different than any other possibility. I don't know if we should break the habit seeing as we are right so much.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
Comment removed
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife Specified complexity is a term that just takes the complex things that serve a function or give a reason to us humans. These kinds of things don't have to be explained by design. IDers try to dodge the issue of God by proposing other things like aliens. But if we are going to take them seriously we would have to apply his criticisms against evolution to the creation of the creator. Why doesn't he just be honest and say he's trying to give evidence for God?
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, ironically, it was Francis Crick who hypothesized that extraterrestrials seeded Earth with life, and he’s no friend of creationism. Many design theorists are not only outspoken about their theism, but also their Christian faith. The problem is that when they do this, critics wrongly assume that it automatically rules out their theories by definition; design theorists acknowledge that religion is prohibited from the classrooms; they're quick to admit that it doesn't prove their God.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife I don't rule out intelligent design. I just don't think it is a good explanation and I'm happy to wait for answers to problems in biology instead of introducing a gammit of other problems by proposing a designer. Especially since a designer would be subject to the same biological criticisms that we would be trying to solve.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, humanity does have a tendency to elevate themselves, but remember that the anthropic principle wasn’t discovered until the 70s when scientists were beginning to realize that we live in a privileged universe. Sure, before that time people were saying, “The universe appears just right for us,” but it wasn’t proven scientifically until many centuries later. Nature is blind, so it doesn’t see anything, but we are different from other possibilities given that our existence is unlikely.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "it wasn’t proven scientifically until many centuries later"
I don't think appearances get proven by science and I wouldn't say theoretical tinkering with numbers counts as proof for what a universe could have been. It could be that this is the only real kind of universe possible. I'd like a TOE and multi-verse combo but knowing a little history of science answers don't seem to come so easy without introducing more issues. All answers have their own problems including God.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, the idea that this is the only possible universe that could have existed is not taken seriously by physicists because the values of the constants are independent of the fundamental laws of nature. The theory of everything seems implausible because as scientists gather more information about the universe they discover more fine tuning, and so if this pattern persists, isn’t it possible that the grand unifying theory’s values must lie in a narrow range of values to be life-compatible?
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, the superstring or M-Theory, the most auspicious possibility for the theory of everything, predicts a domain of about 10^500 unique universes governed by the same laws of nature, meaning that our universe's values are not a necessity. If there’s no plausible explanation, such as a combination of natural necessity and the multiverse hypothesis, the design is likely genuine, and we’d have scientific proof that the fine tuning of the universe’s constants was the product of design.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, the notion that this universe is the only possible one is a strong statement and requires proof, because it’s akin to saying that a life-permitting universe must exist as a brute fact, but why must it be that way at all? Why couldn’t it be by natural necessity that the universe simply must be life-prohibiting? Moreover, putting your prospect in the theory of everything or some sort of combination with the multiverse hypothesis takes too much faith, since the evidence is lacking.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, all theories have problems, but it’s important to weigh them objectively, asking, “Does the reasons for accepting the theory outweigh the ones for rejecting it?” When weighing the claims of natural necessity and the multiverse hypothesis, I find them to be little more than speculation and faith-based. The theory of intelligent design might raise questions about the origin of the Designer and the like, but those thoughts do not override the explanatory power and the rationality of it.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "intelligent design might raise questions about the origin of the Designer..."
I agree that a designer has explanation power for accounting for the event. However, what is lacking is the mechanisms and the evidence of how something like this even could exist or do the magical powers it is claimed to do. Santa is a good explanation for my presents but a 3 year old that doesn't know how they got there isn't rationally justified in believing in it.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife And I'm assuming your a Christian but that doesn't mean you cannot recognize how extravagant a God idea is. People take for granted how crazy the idea really is because we are so accustomed to it. I thought having zillions of universes was an idea too extravagant until I got accustomed to the idea and thought about how mind boggling other alternatives are as well. I just realized you had other comments and I will respond to them as well.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, I am an outspoken Christian, and quick to put myself in atheistic shoes, but I feel that atheism is too simple, lacks the explanatory power, and requires a lot faith to maintain. If you were to raise this objection to the theory of intelligent design, the movement doesn’t identify the name of the Designer. If you wish to merely assert that intelligence was involved in tuning the values of the universal constants, you are free to do so. But unintelligent explanations don’t add up.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife "I feel that atheism is too simple, lacks the explanatory power, and requires a lot faith to maintain"
How does not believing in a spectacular claim require faith? If your assuming that's because God has so much evidence then I wonder why Intelligent designers have so much faith against the mountains of evidence for evolution and God thinks they are special despite showing no objective evidence in answered prayers or distribution in saving people of different cultures.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, actually, all of reality is frankly extravagant, such as the center of black holes, quantum mechanics, singularities, relativity of time and space, light being both a wave and particle, string theory, matter is virtually empty space, and now dark matter represents ninety-five percent of the universe. So, we shouldn’t be deciding truth based upon opinions about the nature of the finding, but on whether the hypothesis is the best explanation that accounts for all the data.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife Actually extravagance does matter. That's the exact reason you were dismissing the multiverse hypothesis to account for the "fine tuning" of the universe. In fact that's the point of occam's razor. An explanation that makes the bigger assumptions and explains nothing more is likely to be false. Wouldn't you agree Zeus is a bigger assumption than your God? I know of at least one universe. I'm not positing things coming out of nothing by magical invisible people.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic, chance alone doesn’t signify specialness, but when coupled with specificity, we have something special. Its very unlikely for any pattern of heads and tails to occur, but what differentiates that from a series of heads? You see, design theorists are not only looking for complexity or chance, but also for specificity. If the universe’s constants were merely improbable, that wouldn’t warrant the conclusion of design, however, it is remarkably specified to produce life despite the odds.
MrJesusinuislife 9 months ago
@MrJesusinuislife I enjoy discussing with you and I think you and Epydemic are a breath of fresh air on you tube. Even for me, atheists are often the toughest to disagree with. I really am not sure there is no God. In fact I've debated with my self deism for a long time and I can appreciate the order of the universe and I don't feel satisfied with atheists who don't feel the need to take seriously that our universe is in a need for an explanation.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@rawssremix, how does the multiverse hypothesis fare with Occam’s razor? Not so well: It assumes that a universe exists apart from ours, then another one, then another, ad infinitum! It also makes the assumption that there exists enough universes to account for the infinitesimal improbabilities of a life-permitting universe arising by chance! Don’t you see the ridiculousness of postulating the existence of a trillion trillion trillion plus universes just to account for the constants of just one?
austinmckenzie69 11 months ago 6
@austinmckenzie69 "The multiverse hypothesis is an insult to Occam’s razor."
How so? If something can generate one universe how much more complicated is it to generate more? Occam's razor is about adding assumptions or unjustified claims. God is way more complicated than any universe and has powers that are unlike anything we see in the universe. That demands proof much more than any amount of universes does. The multiverse doesn't eliminate God either. Many theists take it seriously.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic i believe that it seems 2 finely tuned for there 2 b no master creator....there must b....ure thoughts ( i want both ure opinions)
SteadeeB 9 months ago
@SteadeeB I don't think so. I think these videos are a little too long just to refute theist use of the fine tuning argument when a deist would be happy to concede God is limited, which would only prove their point to be talking about the fine tuning of the universe. In fact ID advocates are using his principle of goal or contrivance that we see done by intelligent beings to argue that there must be something similar for biology. The problem is (continue)...
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@SteadeeB when something inneficient arises they can say God doesn't have to be perfect and if that doesn't succeed, which I've heard Demski argue recently, Evolution and common decent could be true but all we have to point out instances of design. In other words they could pick an choose which stuff may have come about naturally and which stuff must of come by design. Maybe our bodies aren't perfect but a few of the important "irreducibly complex" genes were put there by God.
RuinSonic 9 months ago
@RuinSonic You are awary that the 'irredcuble complexity' arguement was demolished by HJ Muller in 1918.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok No I wasn't aware. You can't disprove such a thing any more than you can disprove that you won't find a bunny low in the fossil record. The evidence for evolution makes it unlikely, but it's still a falsifiable theory.
RuinSonic 7 months ago
@RuinSonic What I can prove is that irreducible complexity is to be expected in evolved systems. There is no principle by which 'designed systems' may be identified. Behe knows this is true, he's just being dishonest.
Muller, Hermann J., "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors," Genetics 3:422–499.v
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok Of course in that sense. I was thinking in terms of irreducible complexity had to do with truly no feasible way for something to be created incrementally.
To me the issue is like history. We take what we know today and deduce what could of happend. If we know of aliens or supernatural designers we could have criteria for evidence to prove that those things created us. However, since we don't the evidence strongly points to natural explanations.
RuinSonic 7 months ago
@RuinSonic Behe has been searching for something that could not have been evolved incrementally for more than two decades, and still hasn't found one. He's tried Bacterium flagellium, immune system, blood clotting, and he's been defeated every time. Remember, to defeat him it's only necessary to show how it could evolve, not how it did. It's been known IC doesn't fit his purpose since Wilson was president., the guy's just dishonest.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok Well that's how "intellectuals" in the creationist movement still think they have the upper hand. Since they already believe in creation from their beliefs or intuition, the burden of proof is on you to show evolution isn't impossible as it seems to be to them. The reality is the burden of proof is only necessary to support a theory and not to defeat any possible problems. Creationists are the greatest example of pseudo-skepticism we have today.
RuinSonic 7 months ago
@RuinSonic The burden of proof on creationists is not to prove that evolution isn't impossible. Evolution could be possible, but not have happened if everything was created anyway. Creationists must prove that the Genesis account is true, which is impossible. But secularists have the same burden of proof. They must prove-not that evolution is possible-but that it all happened like they say: millions of years, apes to man, etc. Which they can't either. No one was there to observe it.
digifreak10101 2 months ago
@digifreak10101 "No one was there to observe it."
It's already been proven that the earth is at least a few billion years old and that evolution is true. There's nothing "secularist" about not-denying many years of accumulated knowledge from science.
The problem is ignorance and special pleading against the evidence. In any other field of science this kind of evidence would be accepted by everyone but the completely ignorant and some mentally ill livestock.
RuinSonic 2 months ago