Fine Tuning of the Universe - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-16-2006, 02:15 AM   #16
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Sure, to some the universe may seem "too contrived" to be a chance event, especially if they think this is the only universe. But if there are, by chance, billions and trillions and/or infinite number of universes ("branes" as some cosmologists refer to them, based on one of the theories...all sorts of different universes, with different physics and particles and unfinely tuned realities and matter and some universes with no matter, etc., etc.), the chance or probability of our "fine-tuned" universe existing in its present form suddenly doesn't seem that hugely out of the ordinary. Of course, nobody knows yet, just as nobody knows any other answer, including the first-Divine-cause answer.

But, the good thing about having a theory of infinite universes is you could have all kinds...even a kind of universe that, perhaps by chance, is begun (or if not begun, at least bestowed upon and then ruled) by a something called God. And, hey, our universe could be that. But, uh, why don't we all wait and find out, instead of jumping to conclusions. From what i've seen so far in my puny life, science seems to be the best language in explaining and unfolding our reality in the most believable and consistent manner.
__________________

__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 02:38 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:17 PM
I issue a challenge, show me the evidence that the universe was designed, the 99.999 ad infinitum percent near certainty that is supposedly ignored by the mainstream scientific community. If this is really so brilliantly convincing then it shouldn't have any trouble in swaying me.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 03:24 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen



ummm... maybe i'm not reading your post correctly but the theory of the big bang hasn't been around for "thousands of years". It's a very recent theory. It really hasn't been that long since it was believed that the world was flat and the that the sun revolved around the earth.

Just because one theory is thrown out doesn't mean that you shouldn't believe in science anymore. Look at medical science for example. Because they were wrong about bleeding people to cure them does that mean that we shouldn't trust medicine either because it is likely to be just a bunch of crap too?
My point in a way was that the only reason the big bang theory hasn't been thrown out the window is because it hasn't been around too long. I don't completely trust science, but I find a ton of uses for it. I just find it hard to trust science on theories like the big bang and such. Medicine definitely isn't a bunch of crap (although the way alot of doctors and pharmacists handle it definitely is IMO)
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 03:31 AM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:17 PM
What about evolution? It is a very important factor in modern medicine.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 03:34 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 09:17 AM
I'm not really familiar with how they're related.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 03:37 AM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:17 PM
The genetic risk factors for a good deal of diseases are the result of evolutionary pressures on populations, for instance the relatively high rates of sickle cell anaemia in West African populations due to that particular adaption being adventageous in the face of malaria.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 03:40 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Oh, I see. Just so you know I'm not completely opposed to the idea of evolution. I'm not denying it exists or anything. I just don't believe fish turn into monkeys who turn into humans etc..
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 11:27 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The "odds against" argument is full of shit because the events themselves did occur at some stage; just because it is unlikely doesn't infer design.
I agree that the events occurred. To assert that it simply “occurred” by accident within a 12-20 billion year time span despite the fact that such a chance occurrence is almost a mathematical impossibility. I am not asking you to necessarily insert God here – I am just asking you to admit, as a reasonable human being, that there must be another explanation other than “it just happened.” If someone told you they threw a dart across the universe and hit a bulls eye, would you consider that reasonable? I mean – really?



Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

Bullshit, there is absolutely no way to prove the existence of this supposed creator, it an unfalsifiable element and the nature of science is that a theory has to have the ability to be disproved.
Well, in order to make up for the odds against such a possibility of an accident for this finely tuned universe – many scientist are going to this theory that there are an inifinite number of universes. What? C’mon – where is the evidence for that? How can that ever be falsifiable? In addition, that just kicks the can down the road. Meaning, eventually, if this theory was ever proven, (which there is no way it could be), you would still have to acknowledge a “universe creating machine.” The question of a creator would still be present.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

Your authoratative statement about the statistical evidence for a creator is valid as the evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Quite simply the supposition of a creator is not the conclusion that the evidence points to, we see a purely naturalistic universe, the anthropic principle also fails to make the case for or against a creator because it merely states that we only exist in the world that is ideal for our existence and we never see the innumerable situations where life and us do not arise.
What does the evidence point to if not a creator? Yes, we do observe a naturalist universe – and I think all the evidence points that 1) it was created and 2) it has a design.

Lets say you became an astronaut, and you went on an expedition to Mars and found a small BioSphere System (like the one in Arizona) somewhere in a mountain range. You and the other astronauts walk into it and find thousands of dials with thousands of settings – and they all had to perfectly set in order for life to exist in the BioSphere – would you believe that the BioSphere was made by an intelligent being, or would you think “Wow, given enough time+matter+chance – anything is possible – even this cute little BioSphere.”

Our universe is trillions and trillions of times more complex than the BioSphere. It seems to me, the leap of faith is on the atheist.



Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


You know if I throw an infinite number of tornadoes at an infinite number of towns that is going to happen eventually, the size of the universe would make the formation of self-replicating organisms a cosmic inevitability –
But you don’t have an infinite number of tornados, an infinite number of towns, and an infinite amount of time to work with.

Human towns like the example I used have only been around, at most, 100 years (I’ll leave out the electricity and air conditioners for you). In order to represent the odds against there being a Intelligent Designer – the tornadoes must strike the same town twice within the time window that such towns existed.





Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer


my evidence for this statement is that life has emerged on the planet Earth. Those who infer design on the basis of the complexity in the universe are not making that leap based on the evidence –
Sure we do, and so do those scientists the article quoted.

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

we have no evidence for a creator and the assumption that one ever existed is an invention of mankind, unless the evidence draws us to the conclusion of creation and design (and it has not done so over the last century) then the idea shouldn't be entertained seriously.
I think the evidence is actually overwhelming in favor of a creator and a designer. Now I am not saying that you have to name him Yahweh, Allah, Jesus – I am just saying that the evidence that the universe is created and fine tuned is about 99.9999 (please add billions and billions of nines here – like before) certain. I feel pretty confident that the more about the universe we learn, the certainty factor will only increase.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 05:13 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 220
Local Time: 09:17 AM
AEON you still haven't done anything to convince anyone not already agreeing with you. You cannot get around the fact that your 99.999…whatever…999% certainty of a creator is an a priory statement coming from your personal belief. It does not meet the basic scientific criterion of being falsifiable as described by Popper. Your unfounded claim has absolutely no value and no place in a scientific discussion. Believe what you want but do not come to the marketplace of scientific ideas as demand that the scientific community gratefully accept claims built on your personal world view. Show me irrefutable evidence (which on the most basic level is evidence gathered by repeated unsuccessful attempts at falsification) and we can talk – but since A_Wanderer has already given you this challenge and you have not answered it in the least, I’m assuming that no such evidence is forthcoming.
__________________
silja is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 06:04 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 09:17 AM
You can't prove for a fact that God created the universe. That would require no faith at all, which is what religion is based on.

IMO it also takes a heck of a lot of faith to accept the view of the big bang as it seems so silly.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 06:17 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:17 AM
The leap of faith is something a believer does, not a scientist.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 06:30 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by silja
AEON statement coming from your personal belief. It does not meet the basic scientific criterion of being falsifiable as described by Popper.
An the Infinite Universe theory can?

A great many people think belief and science can go hand in hand. Just because I am a Christian, doesn't mean that I can't discuss these questions.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 06:36 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
The leap of faith is something a believer does, not a scientist.
Throwing a dart across the universe and believing it will hit a bullseye on the other side sure seems as if it would take alot of faith to me.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 07:05 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
I agree that the events occurred. To assert that it simply “occurred” by accident within a 12-20 billion year time span despite the fact that such a chance occurrence is almost a mathematical impossibility. I am not asking you to necessarily insert God here – I am just asking you to admit, as a reasonable human being, that there must be another explanation other than “it just happened.” If someone told you they threw a dart across the universe and hit a bulls eye, would you consider that reasonable? I mean – really?
The statement sounds authoritative but it isn't based on reality, the odds you cite are not built from genuine understanding of how nucleotides develop on a terrestrial planet, nor how many earth like planets there are in the universe and the factor of time while important has to go along with the issue of space - if we live in an infinite universe then life is a 100% certainty regardless of how small the chances of it's formation are.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2006, 07:16 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:17 PM
Quote:
Well, in order to make up for the odds against such a possibility of an accident for this finely tuned universe – many scientist are going to this theory that there are an inifinite number of universes. What? C’mon – where is the evidence for that? How can that ever be falsifiable?
By testing what exactly how subatomic particles behave and if they are interacting outside the dimensions of our own universe perhaps.
Quote:
In addition, that just kicks the can down the road. Meaning, eventually, if this theory was ever proven, (which there is no way it could be),
Imagine a world where all people were so resigned, right now we can't test a theory of infinite universes but that doesn't mean that is an impossibility forever - given the mathematical basis for the hypothesis I think that infinite universes is more valid than any argument for design. It's like when Behe published Darwins Black Box and had a whole piece on how the flagellum was irreducably complex only to have the evolutionary pathway discovered before a decade had passed, science is a progressive system of knowledge and claiming that something is and always will be impossible when we lack all the evidence or knowledge will generally lead to problems.
Quote:
you would still have to acknowledge a “universe creating machine.” The question of a creator would still be present.
Only if at some stage I had a framework that required a beginning, an eternal infinite universe or higher dimension would nullify the need for any creator.
Quote:
But you don’t have an infinite number of tornados, an infinite number of towns, and an infinite amount of time to work with.
Really? do you have any idea how big the universe in it's entirety is? We can only see 13.7 billion light years away but it could stretch on for infinite - in that situation then every possible permutation of particles would play out, given that life obeys the laws of physics there is absolutely no need to introduce a designer - as far as complexity goes surely you must know that evolution is not purely random - it is directed by population pressures leading to specialisation and diversification, not driven by the hand of a mystical and inherently unfalsifiable entity but purely by natural selection acting upon infinitely varying replicators.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com