The Universe is fine-tuned for life
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#413 Jul 29, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So it boils down to you accepting anything that agrees with you and reject anything that doesn't. You don't really care about the evidence, or the reasoning involved; you only care about whether there are points you agree with or not.
In the case of the Big Bang, we know the universe is expanding. We know it was once much hotter and denser to the point that nuclear reactions happened *everywhere*. We know that it cooled to the place where light could get through about 300,000 years after the start of the expansion. But you reject all of this and only accept that the universe had a beginning. You reject the evidence that supports this conclusion and ignore the limitations and caveats to that conclusion. ALL you care about is whether you can twist it to support something you believe in.
Sorry, but rational discourse doesn't work that way. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion works that way and THAT is why religion and truth are frequently at odds.
Next, you claim the universe *must* have a cause. Why? What, precisely, do you mean by the term 'cause'? Why must everything that has a beginning have a 'cause'?
To be more clear: causes are things that happen *in time* and according to *physical laws*. To even discuss a cause, you need time and physical laws. But time is a part of the universe, not something outside of it. And physical laws only make sense in the context of physics. So the very notion of 'a cause of the universe' either requires some sort of multiverse with physical laws and time OR it is simply meaningless. I suspect you don't like either conclusion, so will reject this argument without giving any actual alternative conceptualization of the term 'cause'.
I said IF I accept the Big Bang which translates I do not accept it.

Yes you are right, I reject all the things you claim to know. You do not know what happened 5995 years ago let alone 300 000years after the so-called Big Bang. I reject outlandish claims & am not hoodwinked by their appearance in scientific language & texts. Total nonsense.

Talking about religion, it's you that is religious. Just look at your claims. Christianity is NOT a religion, religious people killed Jesus.

Your understanding of "cause" is warped by your religious convictions to what science can know. Here's a list of what your religion blinds you from: simultaneous cause does not happen in time. Mathematical relationships are not caused by laws of physics. Laws of physics are not caused by physics & the beginning of time did not happen in time. This is not hard to figure out once one shakes off his religious fundamentalism.

Of course the universe had a cause & that cause was not any laws of physics neither was it in time.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#414 Jul 29, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
If I can spare the time. I can only deal with so many idiots at once and still keep my IQ above 140. With KAB and Jim Ryan taking up most of my available idiot time, you'll have to take you turn in rotation.
<quoted text>
I speak up whenever I damn well feel like it. Too bad if that bothers you. It's a public forum, fruitloop.
Yes, do it yourself IQ tests have been on special offer for a long time. 140? Stop being so modest.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#415 Jul 29, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul Davies, Lawrence Kraus, Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Fred Hoyle, Freeman Mason Peter Ward, etc, etc have all said the universe is "fine-tuned." Yet you have a problem with the term? I see. And Bill Clinton did NOT have sexual relations according to a certain term.
Actually, they have mostly said that it is 'apparently' fine tuned. The problem is that they also understand that there are no known mechanisms to tune it in any way.
Then you happily say fine-tuning is due to a mechanism we have no evidence of. Say what? Or may be I should translate, you have no evidence of something - none whatsoever - but you believe it anyway. OK, I think I can see where this is going.
First, I deny whatever tuning there is is 'fine'. A factor of 100 up or down is NOT fine tuning. If it *is* possible for the 'constants' to be different than they are (of which we have no evidence), then to get them to where they are either requires a mechanism or it is a random process. While we do not know which, the strong bias from what we know is towards randomness.
It's going to the multiverse, all the way. Now for that not only do you not have evidence, it's not possible to have that evidence. It's out of this world.
Once again, if you can come up with a quantum theory of gravity that doesn't involve a multiverse, you would have an argument. But we *know* there has to be a quantum theory of gravity. Up to now, ALL such theories we have found imply a multiverse. That is the *only* reason such a concept is taken seriously.
Why didn't you say so right from the start & saved me explaining: Habitable Zones, atmospheric gases, water chemistry, plant physiology etc. Who needs all that when you can just appeal to evidence we haven't got plus evidence we'll never get?
Are we talking cosmology or geology? Habitable zones and atmospheric gases are hardly fine tuning if they can be expected to be common. And yes, there is every reason to expect both of those to be common in the universe. In fact, the habitable zone is extensive around any type F or G star (not to mention smaller regions around K and M type stars). We know planets are common, so planets in habitable zones are almost certainly common. That is, unless you can give a reason why they would not be. Now, I agree we have yet to find any, but that is because our techniques aren't be able to find them even if they are common. Just a decade ago, the commonality of planets was just plausible. Now it is confirmed.

The atmospheric gases when the earth formed are not the same as the ones now. Of that, we know from chemical measurements from geology. And the gases required for life to start are exactly the ones that are most common in the universe (and in the solar system).

Unless you can show a possible scenario where water has very different characteristics than it does, that is also not a fine tuning.

Plant physiology evolved to work on earth. That again is not fine tuning in the sense we are discussing. This is the puddle asking why the ground around is perfectly fitted for it.

Have anything else?
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#416 Jul 29, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine Tuning is above your pay level. It has been debunked. Rather than go over some science that you are going to need some serious math to understand why not follow my suggestion. Let's discuss why we knew there was no Flood long before Darwin came along. A little learning can help you to get over these bronze age myths that you are clinging to.
Feel like the subject? Start a new thread.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#417 Jul 29, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, do it yourself IQ tests have been on special offer for a long time.

I wouldn't know.

[QUOTE who="In Six Days"]140? Stop being so modest.
If you wish.
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#418 Jul 29, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. This is an obviously foolish argument and I can even restate it in a version that you can understand:
If God is needed to make the universe you can't have a God unless you have a God maker.
If you want to claim your God exists without a maker there is no reason we can't make the same claim for the universe.
You need to learn about uncaused existence. Think of any number, say 15. Next ask yourself what caused it? Numbers exist you know & they do so without a cause. I'll leave you ponder that.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#419 Jul 29, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
Talking about religion, it's you that is religious. Just look at your claims. Christianity is NOT a religion, religious people killed Jesus.
Both sides were religious there. The followers of Jesus returned the favor many times over.
Your understanding of "cause" is warped by your religious convictions to what science can know. Here's a list of what your religion blinds you from: simultaneous cause does not happen in time.
Wrong. Simultaneity requires time.
Mathematical relationships are not caused by laws of physics.
Agreed. Mathematical relationships are matters of language, not physics.
Laws of physics are not caused by physics
Right. The laws of physics are not caused because they are not physical.
& the beginning of time did not happen in time.
Right. In a strict sense, there is no beginning, only a finite amount of time into the past (assuming a Big Bang).
This is not hard to figure out once one shakes off his religious fundamentalism.
Of course the universe had a cause & that cause was not any laws of physics neither was it in time.
Again, a bald claim. WHY must it have a cause? What does 'cause' mean in this context?
In Six Days

Chester, UK

#420 Jul 29, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Both sides were religious there. The followers of Jesus returned the favor many times over.
<quoted text>
Wrong. Simultaneity requires time.
<quoted text>
Agreed. Mathematical relationships are matters of language, not physics.
<quoted text>
Right. The laws of physics are not caused because they are not physical.
<quoted text>
Right. In a strict sense, there is no beginning, only a finite amount of time into the past (assuming a Big Bang).
<quoted text>
Again, a bald claim. WHY must it have a cause? What does 'cause' mean in this context?
All I need to show that not everything has a physical cause us one example. You've conceded mathematical relationships, that's enough.

If the universe began then it had a cause because ALL that begins has a cause. If things began without a cause a study of causes would not exist. Science is a largely a study of causes so you'd have to reject it as meaningless musings. In practice, if things popped into existence without a cause they'd be nothing to stop 1m popping into my bank account, uncaused. I wish. Alternatively 1m could vanish from your account without a cause; somehow I don't think you'd accept a causeless explanation.

The only way not to have a beginning is either to be infinite in the past or to have always existed (self-existing).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#421 Jul 29, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
All I need to show that not everything has a physical cause us one example. You've conceded mathematical relationships, that's enough.
Mathematical relationships are matters of language. They are abstract and uncaused only in the sense that they have no causal relationships at all.
If the universe began then it had a cause because ALL that begins has a cause.
I deny that. Can you prove it? To some extent, this question depends on your exact definition of the term 'cause', which you have not provided. yet you disagree with the one I provided that requires both time and physical laws for causality.
If things began without a cause a study of causes would not exist.
I would agree that many things have causes. That will justify a 'study of causes' even if there are also things that do not have causes.
Science is a largely a study of causes so you'd have to reject it as meaningless musings.
Actually, science is mostly the study of correlations and the *hypothesis* of causes. But not all scientific theories are causal. In such cases, the scientific laws predict the probabilities of various occurrences, but not which occurrence will actually happen in any particular case.

An example of a non-causal theory that is quite successful is quantum mechanics. ALL quantum mechanical processes are probabilistic and non-causal.
In practice, if things popped into existence without a cause they'd be nothing to stop 1m popping into my bank account, uncaused. I wish. Alternatively 1m could vanish from your account without a cause; somehow I don't think you'd accept a causeless explanation.
Actually, things *do* pop into existence without a cause. it is common at the subatomic level. The reason you don't see it at the macroscopic level is that the probabilities decrease rapidly with mass.
The only way not to have a beginning is either to be infinite in the past or to have always existed (self-existing).
Let's be careful about what it means to 'have a beginning'. There are two possible interpretations with very different meanings.

1. One meaning is to say that something 'has a beginning' if there is a time when it does not exist and a later time when it does.

2. A different meaning is to say that something 'has a beginning' if the length of time it has existed is finite.

While these seem very similar, I would say that the universe only has a beginning in the second sense. And, in this case, the reason it 'has a beginning' is that time itself is finite. So the universe would 'have a beginning' in the second sense, but not in the first sense because there was no *time* before the universe.

The other problem is in the phrase 'always existed'. Again, there are two potential meanings:
1. That it has existed for an infinite period of time.

2. That it has existed whenever time existed.

In this, I would say that the universe has 'always existed' in the second sense. Again, if time itself is finite into the past, there is a difference between these notions. In that case, for example, time would have 'always existed' only in the second sense and *nothing* would have 'always existed' in the first sense because time itself is finite.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#422 Jul 29, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
All I need to show that not everything has a physical cause us one example. You've conceded mathematical relationships, that's enough.
Everything physical that has a cause has a physical cause. That is part of the definition of the term 'physical'.
The only way not to have a beginning is either to be infinite in the past or to have always existed (self-existing).
To be more clear, I would say that time 'has a beginning' because it only extends finitely into the past. But because there is nothing 'before time', there is no causality for time itself. So, in that sense, your claim that everything that has a beginning must have a cause is simply wrong.

I would go further and say that the universe is co-existent with time. So it also 'has a beginning' in the sense that it has not existed for an infinite period of time, yet it also has 'no cause' because there is no time before the universe and a causal agent would imply a previous time.

Now, with very slight shifts of definitions, I could also say that the universe has 'always existed' because it has existed whenever there has been time. I could also say that it has 'no beginning' because there is no *time* before the universe after which the universe existed.

Definitions are important here and much care is required.

The problem seems to be that you assume that time goes infinitely far into the past. While that *may* be the case (if you assume a multiverse or a previously existing universe), it is certainly not guaranteed to be the case. In fact, the *only* way for time to make sense outside of the Big Bang is for there to be a multiverse of some sort. Even if there is an infinite time for the multiverse, it may or may not correspond well to the time within our universe.

A frequently use analogy when people ask what was before the Big Bang is to ask what is south of the south pole. The answer to both questions is *nothing* because there simply *is no* south of the south pole (all directions are north there) and there simply *is* no 'before the Big Bang' because all times are after there.
wondering

Morris, OK

#423 Jul 29, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so that must be why I spend two days a month volunteering at the Healesville Sanctuary helping visitors and explaining the wonderful array of life on display. I thought it was because I love nature, the animals and plants that we share our world with, but I see now that I was wrong, It is because I see "just an insect". Thanks for enlightening me.
http://www.zoo.org.au/healesville
are you an "evolutionists nut"? if not then i was not speaking to you either. go get some cheese to ho with your whine.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#424 Jul 30, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
are you an "evolutionists nut"? if not then i was not speaking to you either. go get some cheese to ho with your whine.
Ah. I see. Shifting the goal posts: another fundybot tool of the trade. By "evolutionists nut" I thought you meant all those that accept evolution, which is certainly how the label read and the way such labels are usually used here. I see now that you want to change your definition.

...meh.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#425 Jul 30, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
I said IF I accept the Big Bang which translates I do not accept it.
Yes you are right, I reject all the things you claim to know. You do not know what happened 5995 years ago let alone 300 000years after the so-called Big Bang. I reject outlandish claims & am not hoodwinked by their appearance in scientific language & texts. Total nonsense.
Talking about religion, it's you that is religious. Just look at your claims. Christianity is NOT a religion, religious people killed Jesus.
Your understanding of "cause" is warped by your religious convictions to what science can know. Here's a list of what your religion blinds you from: simultaneous cause does not happen in time. Mathematical relationships are not caused by laws of physics. Laws of physics are not caused by physics & the beginning of time did not happen in time. This is not hard to figure out once one shakes off his religious fundamentalism.
Of course the universe had a cause & that cause was not any laws of physics neither was it in time.
Translated: you are hopelessly entangled in your own claptrap.
The very way the universe appears to be "fine tuned" is because of the physical constants that intrinsically and inescapably follow from big bang, CDM model, Einstein's field equations of general relativity, star physics etc.
The physical constants you desperately cling to ARE calculated by these models.
IF these models fail, SO will your cherished physical constants.

Has this at last arrived in your bronze age indoctrinated mind now?

"I reject outlandish claims & am not hoodwinked by their appearance".
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!

Let's test this.
Bible: "talking snakes", "man growing 5 meters or taller" (AKA "giants", NORMALLY only featuring in fairy tales, told to children before they go asleep), "men ageing 500 years or older", "a man walking on water", "a man raising from his grave" (AKA "zombies"), "a man surviving 3 days, praying in a fish' belly", "a worldwide flood 4,500 years ago", "all kind of monster, the one more extravaganza than the next one, like having seven heads, wings and 10 horns" ( http://www.world-destiny.com/sevenhead.html ), etc. etc. etc. etc.

ROFLMAO!

Not mentioning your outlandish baloney and mishmash of you preceding posts, each competing to be the most idiot and lunatic one.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#426 Jul 30, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. I see. Shifting the goal posts: another fundybot tool of the trade. By "evolutionists nut" I thought you meant all those that accept evolution, which is certainly how the label read and the way such labels are usually used here. I see now that you want to change your definition.
...meh.
Shifting goal posts is on of his favourite trades indeed.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#427 Jul 30, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
are you an "evolutionists nut"? if not then i was not speaking to you either. go get some cheese to ho with your whine.
"if not then" you were wrong (he is an evolutionist and wonders about the beauty of nature) and else you were wrong too (he is an evolutionist and wonders about the beauty of nature).

TATTLER.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#428 Jul 30, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel like the subject? Start a new thread.
Translation: "I am a little child mentally and don't know what to answer, so a little 'la, la, la,' will do".
wondering

Morris, OK

#429 Jul 30, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah. I see. Shifting the goal posts: another fundybot tool of the trade. By "evolutionists nut" I thought you meant all those that accept evolution, which is certainly how the label read and the way such labels are usually used here. I see now that you want to change your definition.
...meh.
nope. not changing anything. as i have stated and will state once again(for the 50th time). there are evolutionists and creationists. then there are evolutionists nuts and creationists nuts that will go way out of their way, off the rocker for their side.
wondering

Morris, OK

#430 Jul 30, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
"if not then" you were wrong (he is an evolutionist and wonders about the beauty of nature) and else you were wrong too (he is an evolutionist and wonders about the beauty of nature).
TATTLER.
nope. as i have stated and will state once again(for the 50th time). there are evolutionists and creationists. then there are evolutionists nuts and creationists nuts that will go way out of their way, off the rocker for their side.

you i just consider a "nut" period.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#431 Jul 30, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
are you an "evolutionists nut"? if not then i was not speaking to you either. go get some cheese to ho with your whine.
Still can't get the idea of a public forum, can you?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#432 Jul 30, 2014
In Six Days wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn about uncaused existence. Think of any number, say 15. Next ask yourself what caused it? Numbers exist you know & they do so without a cause. I'll leave you ponder that.
Actually numbers DON'T exist. They are abstract concepts, which, by the way, have a cause.

Of course your silly claims were dealt with yesterday. Keep dodging, scooter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 25 min Fudge 3,348
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min 15th Dalai Lama 84,039
Time 1 hr Beagle 5
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr ChristineM 164,969
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 5 hr Zog Has-fallen 63
Alabama people are the Anunnaki 12 hr Mrs parker science 1
Creationism is a Fantasy Fri Zog Has-fallen 7
More from around the web