Ang logic dito bro ay hindi kung paano mo o fine tune ang car mo according to your comfort or taste.
The argument os already in your own very statements....
= the car is made by intelligent being/s.
....of course your car didnt just pop up...
Closed Why Do Some Scientists Believe in God?
- Thread starter Gentleman007
- Start date
-
- Tags
- trivia
- Status
Ang logic dito bro ay hindi kung paano mo o fine tune ang car mo according to your comfort or taste.
The argument os already in your own very statements....
= the car is made by intelligent being/s.
....of course your car didnt just pop up...
Ang punto lang naman sa fine tuning argument ay why is the universe is so fine tuned as it is so conducive to the emergence of life and later intelligent beings like us.
May theory ka po ba at bakit nag emerge ang buhay?
The problem you raised is I think a political and social problem. It does not address or refute why reality is so fine tuned for life. Anyway, there is always a solution to the problem you raised but only human stupidity make life seems so difficult.
It does not take you to be an atheist to disbelief the fine tuning theory else, do you have the statistics or mathematical probability on the random occurence of life.
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Ung logic dito is fine-tuning...na everything is precisely tuned by someone/thing or else nothing wud've happened sa existence naten...
I didnt make any statement that the car was made by intelligent beings..but of corz..its designed and made by smart people... So yeah .it didnt just pop up..it was made...
Now, back to the topic using the car as analogy..the car was not fine-tuned when it was made..otherwise we will not need insurance. As well as ung mga adjustments ng minention ko
The car analogy is not absolutely perfect or exact to speak of fine tuning tuning in the universe. However, the analogy does make sense since it shows that the car is created or made with a computer system, electrical system, steering system, etc etc...itong mga sistema na ito that makes the car-ness of the car we are talking about is created by intelligence or in other words....there must be intelligent processes how the heck this car came into being...
Car insurance does not touch the physics of the car. Car insurance is a social contract albeit it is even a contract made by intelligence. Car insurance policies are not random occurences.
Walang sinabi sa fine tuning argument that everything is fine tuned. First, can we be precise of what is the fine tuning are we talking about here? I think ang TS point is just that the universe is fine tuned for the universe to stay stable, and for life to emerge..that is the very summaty. Now, what you are really telling here is about political, social, environmental issues...these issues do not stop life to emerge or the universe to be lawful and stable..actually, the universe and life come first before these issues you mentioned..
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
The whole point of FTA (not FTT) is that "someone" tuned every constants so as it this universe is viable for the existence of life.
Let me quote some things:
"Implicit in the theistic argument for fine-tuning is the belief that the universe was created with humanity in mind as its ultimate end product. Therefore, those advocating this view must not only make the case for a universe fine-tuned to allow for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, and life; they must argue that the universe was tailored specifically for humans. Hence, the fine-tuning argument cannot be successfully made without simultaneously making a cosmological case for human exceptionalism."
"In termsof both space and time, the vast majority of the cosmos is not merely inhospitable, it is outright hostile to human life. The observable universe, which comprises all the matter and energy that can be seen from our planet, is around 1070 cubic miles in volume. Generously estimating the habitable volume of the Earth to be 109 cubic miles,5 this means that only one part in 1061 of the universe is known to be amenable to life (that’s a 1 followed by 61 zeros!). By way of comparison, this is less than the ratio between the volume of a proton and that of our entire solar system.
As well, humans account for merely one part in ~1041 of the matter in the universe by mass, but even matter itself is far from being the dominant constituent of the cosmos. The universe is overwhelmingly made up of dark energy (~70%) and dark matter (~25%). Ordinary matter makes up a paltry 4–5% of the cosmos, and we, a less-than infinitesimal sliver even of that. The vast disparity between the human and cosmic scales hardly substantiates the notion of human exceptionalism that is endorsed by theists in the context of fine-tuning. It rather suggests that humanity is, at best, little more than a cosmic speck."
Lemme state the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In essence, the Second Law predicts that the universe of tomorrow will be less orderly—and therefore more entropic—than the universe of today.
More quotes:
"What would the universe look like if it had been created and fine-tuned from the start with humanity in mind? Certainly, one would expect that the vast swaths of the cosmos that are unnecessary for our existence would be absent. It could be argued that the existence of solar systems other than our own might serve to test believers’ faith to some extent, but the presence of hundreds of billions of completely separate galaxies beyond the Milky Way appears superfluous. The history of the universe up to humanity’s appearance on the scene should also be much more brief—after all, an omnipotent deity could surely conjure a species into existence instantaneously, without consuming the eons of evolutionary time apparently required under the current plan.
If the universe had been fine-tuned for humanity, one might also expect the study of nature to cause scientists to incline more toward faith, not less. This point in particular is one of the more remarkable failures of the theistic argument: as science reveals to us more and more about the world, theistic models of reality increasingly appear so implausible that they must be amended to conform to new discoveries. Too often we forget that the Judeo-Christian position, which was once generally accepted, placed the Earth at the center of the universe, with Heaven and Hell beyond a sphere of fixed stars. Until Charles Darwin’s time, theists held that the origin and diversity of life were best explained by the account of Creation rendered in Genesis. For this reason, from the theistic standpoint it is all the more deplorable that scientists are disproportionately and increasingly irreligious."
"If the universe was fine-tuned for human life by a thoughtful designer, one must acknowledge the appalling inefficiency of the creation process. For one thing, it has been estimated that about 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.8 God must therefore be credited with an act of destruction that is as monumental as his mass extinction caused by the global flood. One might be led to wonder why a benevolent and omnipotent deity should be unwilling or unable to fashion a species in his own image, without first preparing the way by eradicating countless lesser ones. God must, then, have created the vast majority of species with the intention of wiping them out well before any biblically relevant timeframe. The pain and suffering experienced by the last dinosaurs as they died from a mixed agony of starvation and thirst 65 million years ago is merely one such example among millions."
And:
GM Jackson: "According to the anthropic principle proponents, if the universal constants (e.g. gravitation, the strong force, etc.) were just a nose-hair off, the universe as we know it would not exist; stars wouldn't form and there would be no life and no us. That supposedly makes our universe truly special. To demonstrate just how ridiculous this fine-tuning argument is, consider the fact that no measurement in physics is perfect. All of them are approximations and have margins of error. That means the universal constants, that make our universe what it is, have some wiggle room. Within that wiggle room are an infinite quantity of real numbers. Each of those real numbers could represent constants that could make a universe like ours. Since there are an infinite number of potential constants within that wiggle room, there are an infinite number of potential universes, like ours, that could have existed in lieu of ours. Thus, there is really nothing special about our universe."
AC Grayling: " The fact that a human nose (use the letter X to symbolise the nose) is a necessary condition for spectacles to be perched in front of the eyes (use the letter Y to symbolise ‘spectacles being perched in front of the eyes’) does not entail that, because Y is the case, X is in itself necessary. ‘Necessity’ in the logical sense of ‘having to be so’ is not the same thing as the necessity involved in a ‘necessary condition’ – here things have to be so only relative to something else’s being the way it is. In the case of X’s being a necessary condition relative to Y, but not in itself necessary, X could have been different, and if it were so, there would, or at least might, be no Y. For example: if humans did not have noses, spectacles might be worn as goggles are, held before the eyes by an elastic strap.
This is just how it is with the universe. We humans are the Y of which nature’s parameters are the X. We exist because the parameters are as they are; had they been different, we would not be here to know it. The fact that we exist because of how things happen to be with the universe’s structure and properties entails nothing about design or purpose. Depending on your point of view, it is just a lucky or unlucky result of how things happen to be. The universe’s parameters are not tuned on purpose for us to exist. It is the other way round: we exist because the laws happen to be as they are."
Again, GM Jackson: "The claimof fine tuning is subjective. As I stated before, no measurement in physics is perfect. The amount of precision we demand can be increased or decreased at our whim. We could have an approximate measurement that has a huge margin of error and call it finely-tuned if we so desire. Theists, in particular, have a lot of such desire. They so badly want God to be an indispensable part of our universe's creation, so they see finely-tuned constants.
They also tend to sweep under the rug the following fact: the vast majority of our universe is hostile to life, and they fail to consider that another hand in the proverbial deck might yield a better universe than ours, one teaming with life on every planet throughout the cosmos."
......
And be as it may, socio-economic problems are part of our society..of our nature.. a powerful and all knowing creator/tuner would have realized that, yet he was not able to address that. And its not human stupidity, thought to some people that's the case, but our selfish nature that makes living here on earth sometimes so complicated. (Im injecting the selfish/selfless gene argument here, just to be clear.
)FTA tends to make you believe that our universe was created with humanity as its main purpose, no..we exist because the conditons of our universe, this universe allowed us to exist.
The topic here is why some scientist believe in god and reiterating the FTA as its basis. Majority of scientific findings do not tend to lean on faith, but the opposite. So the argument being pointed here is not accurate.
The whole point of FTA (not FTT) is that "someone" tuned every constants so as it this universe is viable for the existence of life.
Let me quote some things:
"Implicit in the theistic argument for fine-tuning is the belief that the universe was created with humanity in mind as its ultimate end product. Therefore, those advocating this view must not only make the case for a universe fine-tuned to allow for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, and life; they must argue that the universe was tailored specifically for humans. Hence, the fine-tuning argument cannot be successfully made without simultaneously making a cosmological case for human exceptionalism."
"In termsof both space and time, the vast majority of the cosmos is not merely inhospitable, it is outright hostile to human life. The observable universe, which comprises all the matter and energy that can be seen from our planet, is around 1070 cubic miles in volume. Generously estimating the habitable volume of the Earth to be 109 cubic miles,5 this means that only one part in 1061 of the universe is known to be amenable to life (that’s a 1 followed by 61 zeros!). By way of comparison, this is less than the ratio between the volume of a proton and that of our entire solar system.
As well, humans account for merely one part in ~1041 of the matter in the universe by mass, but even matter itself is far from being the dominant constituent of the cosmos. The universe is overwhelmingly made up of dark energy (~70%) and dark matter (~25%). Ordinary matter makes up a paltry 4–5% of the cosmos, and we, a less-than infinitesimal sliver even of that. The vast disparity between the human and cosmic scales hardly substantiates the notion of human exceptionalism that is endorsed by theists in the context of fine-tuning. It rather suggests that humanity is, at best, little more than a cosmic speck."
Lemme state the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In essence, the Second Law predicts that the universe of tomorrow will be less orderly—and therefore more entropic—than the universe of today.
More quotes:
"What would the universe look like if it had been created and fine-tuned from the start with humanity in mind? Certainly, one would expect that the vast swaths of the cosmos that are unnecessary for our existence would be absent. It could be argued that the existence of solar systems other than our own might serve to test believers’ faith to some extent, but the presence of hundreds of billions of completely separate galaxies beyond the Milky Way appears superfluous. The history of the universe up to humanity’s appearance on the scene should also be much more brief—after all, an omnipotent deity could surely conjure a species into existence instantaneously, without consuming the eons of evolutionary time apparently required under the current plan.
If the universe had been fine-tuned for humanity, one might also expect the study of nature to cause scientists to incline more toward faith, not less. This point in particular is one of the more remarkable failures of the theistic argument: as science reveals to us more and more about the world, theistic models of reality increasingly appear so implausible that they must be amended to conform to new discoveries. Too often we forget that the Judeo-Christian position, which was once generally accepted, placed the Earth at the center of the universe, with Heaven and Hell beyond a sphere of fixed stars. Until Charles Darwin’s time, theists held that the origin and diversity of life were best explained by the account of Creation rendered in Genesis. For this reason, from the theistic standpoint it is all the more deplorable that scientists are disproportionately and increasingly irreligious."
"If the universe was fine-tuned for human life by a thoughtful designer, one must acknowledge the appalling inefficiency of the creation process. For one thing, it has been estimated that about 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.8 God must therefore be credited with an act of destruction that is as monumental as his mass extinction caused by the global flood. One might be led to wonder why a benevolent and omnipotent deity should be unwilling or unable to fashion a species in his own image, without first preparing the way by eradicating countless lesser ones. God must, then, have created the vast majority of species with the intention of wiping them out well before any biblically relevant timeframe. The pain and suffering experienced by the last dinosaurs as they died from a mixed agony of starvation and thirst 65 million years ago is merely one such example among millions."
And:
GM Jackson: "According to the anthropic principle proponents, if the universal constants (e.g. gravitation, the strong force, etc.) were just a nose-hair off, the universe as we know it would not exist; stars wouldn't form and there would be no life and no us. That supposedly makes our universe truly special. To demonstrate just how ridiculous this fine-tuning argument is, consider the fact that no measurement in physics is perfect. All of them are approximations and have margins of error. That means the universal constants, that make our universe what it is, have some wiggle room. Within that wiggle room are an infinite quantity of real numbers. Each of those real numbers could represent constants that could make a universe like ours. Since there are an infinite number of potential constants within that wiggle room, there are an infinite number of potential universes, like ours, that could have existed in lieu of ours. Thus, there is really nothing special about our universe."
AC Grayling: " The fact that a human nose (use the letter X to symbolise the nose) is a necessary condition for spectacles to be perched in front of the eyes (use the letter Y to symbolise ‘spectacles being perched in front of the eyes’) does not entail that, because Y is the case, X is in itself necessary. ‘Necessity’ in the logical sense of ‘having to be so’ is not the same thing as the necessity involved in a ‘necessary condition’ – here things have to be so only relative to something else’s being the way it is. In the case of X’s being a necessary condition relative to Y, but not in itself necessary, X could have been different, and if it were so, there would, or at least might, be no Y. For example: if humans did not have noses, spectacles might be worn as goggles are, held before the eyes by an elastic strap.
This is just how it is with the universe. We humans are the Y of which nature’s parameters are the X. We exist because the parameters are as they are; had they been different, we would not be here to know it. The fact that we exist because of how things happen to be with the universe’s structure and properties entails nothing about design or purpose. Depending on your point of view, it is just a lucky or unlucky result of how things happen to be. The universe’s parameters are not tuned on purpose for us to exist. It is the other way round: we exist because the laws happen to be as they are."
Again, GM Jackson: "The claimof fine tuning is subjective. As I stated before, no measurement in physics is perfect. The amount of precision we demand can be increased or decreased at our whim. We could have an approximate measurement that has a huge margin of error and call it finely-tuned if we so desire. Theists, in particular, have a lot of such desire. They so badly want God to be an indispensable part of our universe's creation, so they see finely-tuned constants.
They also tend to sweep under the rug the following fact: the vast majority of our universe is hostile to life, and they fail to consider that another hand in the proverbial deck might yield a better universe than ours, one teaming with life on every planet throughout the cosmos."
......
And be as it may, socio-economic problems are part of our society..of our nature.. a powerful and all knowing creator/tuner would have realized that, yet he was not able to address that. And its not human stupidity, thought to some people that's the case, but our selfish nature that makes living here on earth sometimes so complicated. (Im injecting the selfish/selfless gene argument here, just to be clear.
FTA tends to make you believe that our universe was created with humanity as its main purpose, no..we exist because the conditons of our universe, this universe allowed us to exist.
The topic here is why some scientist believe in god and reiterating the FTA as its basis. Majority of scientific findings do not tend to lean on faith, but the opposite. So the argument being pointed here is not accurate.
You need not to direct me to the quotes above in order to understand FTA.
....and there is not even one or just few intellects to speak of fine tuning argument nor do you need to be a theist to go for the FTA...everybody that is intelligent and has at least knowledge of reality can have a say...
You already jump into conclusion, not everybody shares your undestanding that when the universe is fine tuned, there must be someone who fine tuned it...i think you are too sweeping and that you must realize not your every audience thinks or argues the same about the FTA..
Although, even if by present scientific observation that the universe seems so fine tuned, scientists do not all share the same opinions if there is someone behind all these laws and intricate combinations of chemicals that produced life. It is not necessarily God that os behind these nor we can say it is not God but the point here is that FTA has a legitimate place in scientific inquiry and that is not even the end of science for it only invigorates us to pursue deeper on what is behind these seeming order in the universe.
The whole point of FTA (not FTT) is that "someone" tuned every constants so as it this universe is viable for the existence of life.
Let me quote some things:
"Implicit in the theistic argument for fine-tuning is the belief that the universe was created with humanity in mind as its ultimate end product. Therefore, those advocating this view must not only make the case for a universe fine-tuned to allow for the existence of atoms, molecules, stars, and life; they must argue that the universe was tailored specifically for humans. Hence, the fine-tuning argument cannot be successfully made without simultaneously making a cosmological case for human exceptionalism."
"In termsof both space and time, the vast majority of the cosmos is not merely inhospitable, it is outright hostile to human life. The observable universe, which comprises all the matter and energy that can be seen from our planet, is around 1070 cubic miles in volume. Generously estimating the habitable volume of the Earth to be 109 cubic miles,5 this means that only one part in 1061 of the universe is known to be amenable to life (that’s a 1 followed by 61 zeros!). By way of comparison, this is less than the ratio between the volume of a proton and that of our entire solar system.
As well, humans account for merely one part in ~1041 of the matter in the universe by mass, but even matter itself is far from being the dominant constituent of the cosmos. The universe is overwhelmingly made up of dark energy (~70%) and dark matter (~25%). Ordinary matter makes up a paltry 4–5% of the cosmos, and we, a less-than infinitesimal sliver even of that. The vast disparity between the human and cosmic scales hardly substantiates the notion of human exceptionalism that is endorsed by theists in the context of fine-tuning. It rather suggests that humanity is, at best, little more than a cosmic speck."
Lemme state the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In essence, the Second Law predicts that the universe of tomorrow will be less orderly—and therefore more entropic—than the universe of today.
More quotes:
"What would the universe look like if it had been created and fine-tuned from the start with humanity in mind? Certainly, one would expect that the vast swaths of the cosmos that are unnecessary for our existence would be absent. It could be argued that the existence of solar systems other than our own might serve to test believers’ faith to some extent, but the presence of hundreds of billions of completely separate galaxies beyond the Milky Way appears superfluous. The history of the universe up to humanity’s appearance on the scene should also be much more brief—after all, an omnipotent deity could surely conjure a species into existence instantaneously, without consuming the eons of evolutionary time apparently required under the current plan.
If the universe had been fine-tuned for humanity, one might also expect the study of nature to cause scientists to incline more toward faith, not less. This point in particular is one of the more remarkable failures of the theistic argument: as science reveals to us more and more about the world, theistic models of reality increasingly appear so implausible that they must be amended to conform to new discoveries. Too often we forget that the Judeo-Christian position, which was once generally accepted, placed the Earth at the center of the universe, with Heaven and Hell beyond a sphere of fixed stars. Until Charles Darwin’s time, theists held that the origin and diversity of life were best explained by the account of Creation rendered in Genesis. For this reason, from the theistic standpoint it is all the more deplorable that scientists are disproportionately and increasingly irreligious."
"If the universe was fine-tuned for human life by a thoughtful designer, one must acknowledge the appalling inefficiency of the creation process. For one thing, it has been estimated that about 99.9% of all species have gone extinct.8 God must therefore be credited with an act of destruction that is as monumental as his mass extinction caused by the global flood. One might be led to wonder why a benevolent and omnipotent deity should be unwilling or unable to fashion a species in his own image, without first preparing the way by eradicating countless lesser ones. God must, then, have created the vast majority of species with the intention of wiping them out well before any biblically relevant timeframe. The pain and suffering experienced by the last dinosaurs as they died from a mixed agony of starvation and thirst 65 million years ago is merely one such example among millions."
And:
GM Jackson: "According to the anthropic principle proponents, if the universal constants (e.g. gravitation, the strong force, etc.) were just a nose-hair off, the universe as we know it would not exist; stars wouldn't form and there would be no life and no us. That supposedly makes our universe truly special. To demonstrate just how ridiculous this fine-tuning argument is, consider the fact that no measurement in physics is perfect. All of them are approximations and have margins of error. That means the universal constants, that make our universe what it is, have some wiggle room. Within that wiggle room are an infinite quantity of real numbers. Each of those real numbers could represent constants that could make a universe like ours. Since there are an infinite number of potential constants within that wiggle room, there are an infinite number of potential universes, like ours, that could have existed in lieu of ours. Thus, there is really nothing special about our universe."
AC Grayling: " The fact that a human nose (use the letter X to symbolise the nose) is a necessary condition for spectacles to be perched in front of the eyes (use the letter Y to symbolise ‘spectacles being perched in front of the eyes’) does not entail that, because Y is the case, X is in itself necessary. ‘Necessity’ in the logical sense of ‘having to be so’ is not the same thing as the necessity involved in a ‘necessary condition’ – here things have to be so only relative to something else’s being the way it is. In the case of X’s being a necessary condition relative to Y, but not in itself necessary, X could have been different, and if it were so, there would, or at least might, be no Y. For example: if humans did not have noses, spectacles might be worn as goggles are, held before the eyes by an elastic strap.
This is just how it is with the universe. We humans are the Y of which nature’s parameters are the X. We exist because the parameters are as they are; had they been different, we would not be here to know it. The fact that we exist because of how things happen to be with the universe’s structure and properties entails nothing about design or purpose. Depending on your point of view, it is just a lucky or unlucky result of how things happen to be. The universe’s parameters are not tuned on purpose for us to exist. It is the other way round: we exist because the laws happen to be as they are."
Again, GM Jackson: "The claimof fine tuning is subjective. As I stated before, no measurement in physics is perfect. The amount of precision we demand can be increased or decreased at our whim. We could have an approximate measurement that has a huge margin of error and call it finely-tuned if we so desire. Theists, in particular, have a lot of such desire. They so badly want God to be an indispensable part of our universe's creation, so they see finely-tuned constants.
They also tend to sweep under the rug the following fact: the vast majority of our universe is hostile to life, and they fail to consider that another hand in the proverbial deck might yield a better universe than ours, one teaming with life on every planet throughout the cosmos."
......
And be as it may, socio-economic problems are part of our society..of our nature.. a powerful and all knowing creator/tuner would have realized that, yet he was not able to address that. And its not human stupidity, thought to some people that's the case, but our selfish nature that makes living here on earth sometimes so complicated. (Im injecting the selfish/selfless gene argument here, just to be clear.
FTA tends to make you believe that our universe was created with humanity as its main purpose, no..we exist because the conditons of our universe, this universe allowed us to exist.
The topic here is why some scientist believe in god and reiterating the FTA as its basis. Majority of scientific findings do not tend to lean on faith, but the opposite. So the argument being pointed here is not accurate.
I also want to add that you missed something about the FTA whennyou speak about political, social, political, environmental and religious/theological problem. My question are...what do these things do with the FTA? Cant the FTA be established due to these human problems? When you drag religious or theological flavor that could be stawman fallacy for the FTA can stand as a legitimate scientific.inquiry concerning the origin of life and stability of the universe.. If there were evil, suffering and imperfection in life, that is not what FTA all about. We.must venture into philosophy, theology and aesthetics if we want to know the whys..FTA is fundamentally about how such biological life occured and later intelligences that observe the universe. Whether it is God or an omnibenevolent God behind this fine.tuned universe is another question or is life just a freakish accident???hence, either cases.must be backed with irrefutable arguments or numbers..
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Strawmanning is the TS claim that scientist are convinced of the existence of god due to FTA. Thats what this whole thread is all about.
The FTA premise suggests a "tuner". That has to be established first. That tuner must have an idea on the conditions that is required for the existence of life. That as well have not been established yet.
Like i said, aspects of social, economic, political plays a role in our existence just as the environment does. What we do in our planet have repercussions to our existence. But, nonetheless, natural phenomenons have also effects on us. An earthquke in the ocean floor can cause a tsunami that can wipe out hundreds and thousands of people. Now thats neither social or political or economical at its core. If nature can conjure such things that can kill humanity, how, in the small scale of our planet, can fine-tuning be applicable?
The universe, in all of its hostility to life is another thing.
And if the constants in FTA were supposedly altered, the conditions for our universe may not make life possible here. But that doesnt mean that the life-existing conditions will not exist on another universe. So ours is not that special.
Lets-All-Love-Lain
Eternal Poster
maraming scientist nga na naniniwala sa diyos.
I do not share TS personal religious beliefs. My point is that we just need to expose what the Fine Tuning all about. You dont need to redirect me to redundant quotes since I know what I am talking regarding the subject.
You have mentioned of problems where in fact these problems were of social, political, and religious or theological issues.
My question is..do you really grasp the Fine Tuning? Why is the universe is so conducive to life? Where are your numbers to show that randomness is the cause of biological life? You see, before all these so called problems, sufferings, death and deseases, there was there how in the first place the universe is so well balanced and later so conducive to life..
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Okay..so can we establish first what ur stand on FTA is?
Do u believe that the FT constants is only applicable to our local universe?? Or can it be applicable to other universes?
If u say that all of this is fine-tuned, who is/are the ones making these tuning?
Is there a purpose for FT?? Is humanity its purpose?
Answer to question #1. (note
asensya na kung ganito ang format kasi cellphone lang gamit ko)* ang masasabi ko sa Fine Tuning ay isa siyang Fact. The universe is finely tuned for life to emerge. Biological life is of supreme engineering. Even the simplest form of life is so incredibly complex. Do your research. Is this accident this kind of superb engineering or as you said someone or something is behind this toyibg with our primitive physics? To the religious or theologian he says it is Yahweh, Allah, or Jesus...the simplest thought..but to the physicist that someone or something isnt a single entity, thy maybe many and that they maybe a super ultra advanced beings transcending space and time, in our ordinary parlance, they are aliens of very ancient and yet so very advanced. However, the argument here is that you cant simply ignore the Fine Tuning simply as false for it is there and it is satisying our very scientific investigations.
Question #2
* before making such question...can you first establish if there is another universe than ours or other universes or multiverse? Would you rely na naman sa mga nababasa.mo pero those are speculation. We have no empirical evidence that other universes exists. You are just adding a problem or relocating to the problem to a fantasy land. By the way which we may talk later, we have a refutation of the many worlds or.multiverse but this is too long and you have yet to address the issue of indeed you have the data that other universes exist.
Question #3
Can science answer the purpose of life?
Or if there is a supreme being or beings that fine tuned this universe, alone or them alone knows what are they real purpose or they may reveal to us someday or if religion is true, and the soul is true, they may tell us face to face..
By the way, create your own purpose that is one meaning of life..or perhaps there is no meaning but this not the fine tuning all about. The fine tuner maybe even just an indiffirent being but indeed the universe is finely tuned and this what is all about whether the fine tuner is a personal transcendent being or just a dis interested highly advanced entity is an another question to be entertained in theology/philosophy and not on science.
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
Here's what i cant digest from FTA, while i can accept the variables or constants it presents, the assumption of a "tuner" for me is still cloudy for me. For that tuner must be of higher intellectual capacity to know the parameters that life requires. The constants are facts, but the FTA in itself is not. Its an argument. Until then"fine-tuner" aspects of it have been proven, it will still remain as just an argument.Answer to question #1. (note
* ang masasabi ko sa Fine Tuning ay isa siyang Fact. The universe is finely tuned for life to emerge. Biological life is of supreme engineering. Even the simplest form of life is so incredibly complex. Do your research. Is this accident this kind of superb engineering or as you said someone or something is behind this toyibg with our primitive physics? To the religious or theologian he says it is Yahweh, Allah, or Jesus...the simplest thought..but to the physicist that someone or something isnt a single entity, thy maybe many and that they maybe a super ultra advanced beings transcending space and time, in our ordinary parlance, they are aliens of very ancient and yet so very advanced. However, the argument here is that you cant simply ignore the Fine Tuning simply as false for it is there and it is satisying our very scientific investigations.
Question #2
* before making such question...can you first establish if there is another universe than ours or other universes or multiverse? Would you rely na naman sa mga nababasa.mo pero those are speculation. We have no empirical evidence that other universes exists. You are just adding a problem or relocating to the problem to a fantasy land. By the way which we may talk later, we have a refutation of the many worlds or.multiverse but this is too long and you have yet to address the issue of indeed you have the data that other universes exist.
Question #3
Can science answer the purpose of life?
Or if there is a supreme being or beings that fine tuned this universe, alone or them alone knows what are they real purpose or they may reveal to us someday or if religion is true, and the soul is true, they may tell us face to face..
By the way, create your own purpose that is one meaning of life..or perhaps there is no meaning but this not the fine tuning all about. The fine tuner maybe even just an indiffirent being but indeed the universe is finely tuned and this what is all about whether the fine tuner is a personal transcendent being or just a dis interested highly advanced entity is an another question to be entertained in theology/philosophy and not on science.
The reason i brought up the another universe or multiverse or parallel universe is that's a part of the FTA in terms of refuting it as u said. The premise of FTA is that it requires a design, and henceforth, a designer. The multiverse, matrix and top down cosmology are speculations surrounding the FTA.
The only consensus among scientist is that those constants are the parameters that are within the life-permitting range assuming that all life forms are carbon-based.
This universe, our universe is the only one available for us to observe and we still have little known ideas about it. The recently discovered dark matter and dark energy have been the main focus of modern science and its role on how the universe came to be or why it is like what it is.
To say that the universe is pretty presumptuous. We may or may not be the whole point of the universe. Antrophic principle suggests that yet 99.9999999999 (many 9s) of the universe is hostile to life. Thats a pretty poor design or tuning to me.
My stand on this is that the universe, or the cosmos, in our time allowed life to exist. The constants are just right to permit this to happen. If this wasnt the case, and it was fine-tuned ryt from the start, then why did we need to evolve for such a long time to arrive at this point? Why is the the time of birth of life so little comparing to the time it took for the whole universe to transform or be born in itself.
Cause, maybe life is not the ultimate goal of the universe. So humility about that idea is better that assuming that all of "this" is adjusted for life. We may or may not know that.
If for TS, its god. For you its aliens, both still have the burden of proof for a "tuner" and the idea that the universe, in its entirety, is fine-tuned.
If you can show me how lifeforms in this planet need not to adjust to its conditions they u can say it's fine tuned.
nathansykess
Honorary Poster
Because God created everything and science explain everything that God's created.
Your idea that the universe is more hostile rather than conducive to life is relative to your moral standard.
If the universe is hostile to life, there would be no life..not even the simplest of life form...not even the most primitive life in those pre-biotic soup could not arise from a universe that has no fundamental constants. The simplest and most primitive forms of life on earth required the most complex engineering in the first place. First, there must be the finely balanced universe to hold all the galaxies, stars, planets, all celestial, bodies to keep them from tearing apart or from collapsing. Second, the evolution of biological life is so complex, a kind of ingenius engineering whete enzymes, amino acids, DNS, RNA, protein, molecules etc etc must come into orchestrated highly harmonized where in that beginning life is being formed. If the universe was hostile then, that lowly life form could have been zapped out of existence from a universe where every moment changes changes..the very facf that time and/or the universe allowed life to produce and replicate shows the truth contrary to your opinion. Are you going to say that this dance of the universe and life was accidental and that life got out from the cradle despite a hostile universe? I am asking you the numbers or the probabilities how a mindless universe produced life. How those amino acids, enzymes, DNA, RNA and proteins come together, harmonized together simultaneously from a hostile universe you thought.
The universe constantly undergoes changes. Again, how do we know if the universe is hostile unless life has.evolved? If life never evolved, do you thinl the universe evolved? The fact that wr are here and observing it shows that the universe is allowing life to evolve, not only primitive but intelligent life.
The burst of a supernovae, the smashing of asteroid, the abyssmal blackholes, the furnances into the very depths of stars, the intence brightnes s of quazars and so on are all necessary to birth of all most grandiose...that is life...all these seeming violent natural forces in the universe are the recipe in our birth..we are cooked from the ingridients of stars.
There was then those wondrous gigantic creatures, the dinosaurs, those sea creatures, thicl forests, flying creatures, millions of bacteria species, and humans...if the universe is so hostile to life, how could such abundant variety of life formed and come into being...true, life comes ans goes, we are part of the food chain, there is birth and death.....all these are part of the natural forces in the cosmos...if the universe is so hostile, none of these life even the simplest life cant exist because, nothing can exist from disorder because the fabric of the universe will tear or collapse into nothingness.
Struggle to live or evolve does not mean life can not exist or evolve...before there was this idea of struggle, life already evovled..the universe has allowed life enough space and food for the primitive life to evolv, grow and finally so intelligent that can ponder itself, invent and someday will reshape or maintain the universe. From the law of thermodynamics or entropy, as time goes by, so they say the Sun will die, before that it will grow into super giant and become a supernova, but take not that this will happen billions of years from now...you think if the human specie can survive even for hundred of millions of years can not escape or reshape even the universe? See around you what humans.can do in technology within a 50-100 years period...what do you think if human can survive hundred millions of years can do? Only stupidity can destroy humankind....no no do not pray or hope that an asteroid will hit the planet becausr that argument only is true if it happens but the fact that the Sun will die billions of years and the universe heat death in hundred billions of years from now is a time so so so ample for humankind to reshape and transcend space time itself..only if only we can mitigate and eradicate our own stupidity.
Bandwagon
Powered by Pancit Canton
Forum Guru
Sakto mo talaga magpaliwanag brad bilib ako sa klase ng intelectual na mayroon ka at logic na dala dala, panalangin ko sa may kapal brad sana tawagin ka niya upang magamit ang iyong pag iisip sa dakilang layunin niya sa sangkatauhan, upang mas maunawa at malaman ng tao ang kalooban at dahilan ng Dios kung bakit umiral ang lahat ng ito sa sanlibutan cosmos
Again, i just want to add that true humility is being an open.minded. Sometimes we can show it in some ways like paying respect to the universe that gave birth to us rather than being irreverent and offering to much complaint that it is hostile to life. True humility also means always ready to admit incompleteness of our knowledge of all reality by refraining from being judgmental of one's honest belief and understanding of reality. How do we know that he is in complete error, how do you know that you are totally correct? Our human lifespan as individuals is too short compared to the universe's age and our knowledge is too incomplete to declare an equally opposite but competing theory as fundamentally erroneous. Let us use our intellectual gifts to enlighten others and to make the world/universe a better place when we leave.
It is yet for you to prove the existence of an another universe or multiverse. Where are your data? Where is the empirical evidence?
Where is your mathematical equation or numbers to prove that life appears by accident or random shuffling of matter? The fine tuning theory offers mathematical and empirical proofs, now it is your time to sbow yours. You cant even demonstrate the existence of an another univerae how much more of a multiverse? We can never evrn prove if our universe is the only lucky universe to have life. If other universes are so chaotic and violent, then it could be possible that it affects us and even destroy ours like an infinite chain of causes in an ever disorderly universes/multiverse.Invoking an ultimate ensemble of universes where anything can happen in that infinity of space and time is tantamount to invoking God because anything can happen in an infinite space and time. The multiverse or ultimate ensemble of things is yet to be proved just like God and philosophically we can even equate the ultimate ensemble of universes to God since in infinite time and space anything can happen even the existence of God. Besides, there is no actual infinite physical things since that would contradict motion, space and time..every space and time would have filled everything from the infinite past and we would evrn never arrived to the present.
Meanwhile, i did not claim that it is God or aliens that is behind this fine tuning. Just keep an open mind! I said, behind this fine tuning, maybe it is an alien..no not an alien from andromeda galaxy nor from galaxy M81...i mean maybe being/s of an unimaginable power evrn transcending space and time that it is so alien to us..the religious he calls Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, or Brahma..but it is not yet over..inquiry to the ultimate reality is not yet over to declare if the fine tuning is the making of being/s so vast in knowledge who created the veil of Maya that we may.never face them unless maybe when we die..you see my point? I do not necessarily believe this..i just keep an open mind. We are the children of our own time.. Whatever you believe now, you have to rethink if it is the ultimate. I do not claim my own as the ultimate...just.keep an open mind. The fine tuning argument or theory does not stop science. Actually, it is an another point of departure in science in particular and philosophy in general. It makes us to work harder to confirm if the Fine Tuning is the working of an intelligence so ancient yet so vast or it is an accident.
jayendecastro
Forum Veteran
How is morality relative to the hostility of the universe?? I dont get what u meant by this as i see no correlation between the two. Unless ur assuming that my moral standards are the one holding me back from believing ur point then thats makes no sense at all.
Again, like i said. I agree with the constants, the Lambda, emf, cc, gravity, etc.. those parameters created the environment that would later on produce life. LIFE is the universe is a fact. Thats why we're can discuss this matter now ryt? What i dont agree with is the "tuner" aspect of ur argument.
What ever the case that "tuner" may be the fact that this constant came in to be does not prove an existence of such.
The entire universe is not hostile to life. I said most of it. If u read what i wrote that the universe allowed life to exist then u would know that im not asserting that the universe is hostile to life, parts of it are.
The universe is changing, i agree with that. Its expanding at a rapid rate. Changes in the universe allowed life to exist.
U mentioned the dinosaurs and other ancient creatures. The dinosaurs were wiped out by one of the Big 5... How does fine tuning applied to that if a number of mass extinctions have to happen?? Wudnt a fine tuned for life be more conducive?
Struggle. I also agree with this..life is a struggle. Again, how is there fine-tuning if there is a struggle?
Humility is accepting the fact that the universe made life and not that the universe was fine-tuned for life. I recognise that im not the end-goal here. I acknowledge the fact that mankind may know everything. I accept the constants. But i dont assert that it was set intentionally for life to exist.
I asked about the other universe, i did not state or claim it as fact. I accept the constants, but not as fine-tuned. The multiverse is creatio ex materia, while the god concept and designer idea are creatio ex nihilo..
Like u said. Keep an open mind.both of us can merely speculate on this...
The cosmic scale is vast and still have so many unknowns..majority of it is like i said hostile to life....on the planetary scale, mass extinctions, natural disasters and such dont seem to point to fine tuning to me.
jayendecastro, post: 11761797, member: 744408"]
How is morality relative to the hostility of the universe?? I dont get what u meant by this as i see no correlation between the two. Unless ur assuming that my moral standards are the one holding me back from believing ur point then thats makes no sense at all.
The entire universe is not hostile to life. I said most of it. If u read what i wrote that the universe allowed life to exist then u would know that im not asserting that the universe is hostile to life, parts of it are.
You speak of the universe as 'hostile'. I think we have to review the meaning of hostile. whether you mean metaphorical, anthropomorphic or literal..we should know that the state of hostility only make sense when an intelligent agency is involved and of course an intelligent agent with moral knowledge. to accuse or label the universe is hostile as a whole or in parts is actually pointless. hostile means, unfriendly, opposition, or enemy...we can not say the universe is hostile if we do not have moral standards be that as an atheist or theist or whatever. we can just simply say, the universe is indifferent to our individual liking or longing in life. the universe has no intention to be hostile to you. it has no intention to make you suffer.you wish to see reality in a way you should think must be perfect. you wish the universe unfold in a way you wanted as individuals. this is true the way you say things here means, the universe or life must me like this so and so...without your moral standards, hence, you yourself must be indifferent to the sufferings or death. you are longing for a perfect universe from your moral standard, but the universe is simply the way it is...
jayendecastro; Again, like i said. I agree with the constants, the Lambda, emf, cc, gravity, etc.. those parameters created the environment that would later on produce life. LIFE is the universe is a fact. Thats why we're can discuss this matter now ryt? What i dont agree with is the "tuner" aspect of ur argument.
What ever the case that "tuner" may be the fact that this constant came in to be does not prove an existence of such.
let us be careful with our choice of words here. you used the word 'created'. to my understanding means, in this case, creation ex nihilo...how could you be even consistent to your arguments when you say that these constants or laws of phsyics 'created' the environment that later produced life? creation involves a purpose, the thing created or created ex nihilo presupposes an agency or power to produce a purposeful creation. when you speak of 'created' you already contradicted yourself. creation is vastly different from accidental or randomness.
i do not even say there must be a tuner. the statement 'there must be a tuner' is different from 'there maybe a tuner'.
the first statement is a hasty or jumping to conclusion. if the universe is fine tune, it does not necessarily follow that it has a fine tuner, an agency beyond the universe.
the second statement is scientific. it goes either way. there maybe a fine tuner or there maybe not. that is why we keep digging and exploring reality to confirm if the universe is actually fine tune by a fine tuner or a pure accident.
do you think the answer is already at hand?
jayendecastro;U mentioned the dinosaurs and other ancient creatures. The dinosaurs were wiped out by one of the Big 5... How does fine tuning applied to that if a number of mass extinctions have to happen?? Wudnt a fine tuned for life be more conducive?
i think you greatly misunderstood the fine tuning theory/argument. simply, the whole universe must be finely tuned to be well balanced, and then for life to emerge, evolved and later so intelligent that the universe sees itself thru life...
the laws in the universe must be delicately harmonized in order for life to emerge any even the smallest deviation of parameters/values will not make life possible.
the dinosaurs extinction is just a stage into the cosmic time scale. i have three points here to say..
1. the dinosaurs were wondrous creatures, a superb engineering. their biological structure were so amazing..imagine from simplest organism to such grandiose creatures..i must be in awe. to others maybe, these creatures were simply nothing but moving blobs in the planet millions of years ago, but to me, they were of great beauty, of superb engineering of whatever mechanisms run these living creatures.
2. when these creatures were extinct or wiped out, did life stop? did the universe deny the proliferation of other kind of biological life? again, in our cosmic time scale, the answer is no..since new forms life evolve..smaller yet of another kind of beauty and ultimately humans came into being.
3. if the universe is not conducive to life, how these biological creatures, from hundred of millions of years to present even exist? do you really grasp the profound impact of fine tuned universe? the universe is so conducive to life that milllions or even billions of life variety existed and existing..these living creatures come and go in the cosmic time scale..death and birth are necessary part of the universe. a cycle that is happening as long as this universe is stable..but, by that time, humans, milllion or billions of years from now can reshape or maintain the universe or even go beyond it. the universe is so vast that will allow humans to explore and invent new ways to maintain the planet. it is not the universe's fault if humankind will obliterate itself thru nuclear holocaust..maybe humans as we know today will go extinct in such stupid catastrophe and lowly forms life will eventually gradually evolve to take the humans place in this planet until they will learn such mistakes to be able to create technology to escape the sun's death or maintain the sun as it is now or escape the inevitable heat death of the universe...hundreds of millions of years or billions of years is a vast and very ample time to maybe even reverse the eventual death of the physical universe.
jayendecastro;Humility is accepting the fact that the universe made life and not that the universe was fine-tuned for life. I recognise that im not the end-goal here.
it is a matter of perspective. your statement above is your own perception of reality and your intellectual and moral stand.
to others, it is not. ex. if someone argues that he is the center of the universe, is he right or wrong? to you, he maybe lunatic saying to himself as the center of the universe..but in some sense, he is right. the center-ness of the universe always reside in the individual consciousness. the center of your universe is you, you can not escape that reality. the universe is as if having a one on one correspondence with you. the universe is seeing itself thru you. if you die, so the universe goes with you. what is the sense of this universe's beauty or grandeur if you die? it is nonsense for this universe's confirmation or affirmation of itself lies only thru you as the observer. in conclusion, do not be little the individual's perception of the universe when he says or humankind says it is in the center of the universe. the argument is not purely scientific but it is religious and philosophical. true, in this physical universe, we are not its center. very obvious, we need not to say that. let us just look at the mapped universe, we are not. it is isomorphic as to the present obervation. and even in our galaxy, we are at the edge. but the center-ness we are talking here is not only of physicality, it is a profound religious and philosophical issue as i stated already above. if you ask me if i am the center of the universe, yes, i am. i am the center of my universe as it relates to me..so you to..the center of the universe is you as it relates to you.
jayendecastro; I acknowledge the fact that mankind may know everything. I accept the constants. But i dont assert that it was set intentionally for life to exist.
that is not a complete exposition of the fine tuning theory or argument. it just states that the universe is finely tuned for life to emerge and evolve and later intelligent beings. 'intentionality' on the universe's part is just a religious, poetic, or theological add-in or flavor, however, of course, this is an another debate. it is a matter of perspective. to the religious, the fine tuned universe is God's making. it is the intentional making of God. what you failed to see in the fine tuning theory or argument is that the universe stands as finely tuned regardless of your beliefs.
jayendecastro;I asked about the other universe, i did not state or claim it as fact. I accept the constants, but not as fine-tuned. The multiverse is creatio ex materia, while the god concept and designer idea are creatio ex nihilo..
how do we even speak of a multiverse when we do not have evidence that it exists. do we have an empirical evidence or data? for the sake of speculation, this is tantamount to the GOD hypothesis. in an infinite possibilities, even the emergence or existence of God..now, why should you rule out the existence of God in the infinity of possibilities?i do not argue that there is a GOD..but from your logic on the possible existence of the multiverse does not rule out the logic of God in an infinity of space, time, and possibilities.i am also asking your numbers, equations, proofs...where are your mathematical statements disproving the fine tuning of the universe for life?do you even know the combinations on how simultaneously the DNA, RNA, ENZYMES, AMINO ACID, PROTEINS, GUANINE, CYTOCINE, ADENINE ETC ETC cooperate together just for the simplest and most primitive organism emerge? how could pure chance did this? and even digging further, these molecular structures were not living matter themselves..only by bizarre combinations that these molecular structures form life, and yet taken individually they themselves are not life..even digging deeper, these molecular structures were in fact atoms...and digging deeper, atoms are combinations of space, electrons, proton, neutrons...and digging deeper, leptons, muons, gluons. quarks....and digging deeper, there is the string...and digging deeper and so on, do you think this will end as long as there is an intelligence observing it?what we got here...it shows that there is no single irreducible matter..matter is just a matter of perspective. the atom itself is just a concept of smaller matter where this smaller matter is just a concept of smaller matter and so on until we come to think that these were just concepts or ideas that these were information that these informations were just the working of minds or ultimate mind/s observing.
How is morality relative to the hostility of the universe?? I dont get what u meant by this as i see no correlation between the two. Unless ur assuming that my moral standards are the one holding me back from believing ur point then thats makes no sense at all.
The entire universe is not hostile to life. I said most of it. If u read what i wrote that the universe allowed life to exist then u would know that im not asserting that the universe is hostile to life, parts of it are.
You speak of the universe as 'hostile'. I think we have to review the meaning of hostile. whether you mean metaphorical, anthropomorphic or literal..we should know that the state of hostility only make sense when an intelligent agency is involved and of course an intelligent agent with moral knowledge. to accuse or label the universe is hostile as a whole or in parts is actually pointless. hostile means, unfriendly, opposition, or enemy...we can not say the universe is hostile if we do not have moral standards be that as an atheist or theist or whatever. we can just simply say, the universe is indifferent to our individual liking or longing in life. the universe has no intention to be hostile to you. it has no intention to make you suffer.you wish to see reality in a way you should think must be perfect. you wish the universe unfold in a way you wanted as individuals. this is true the way you say things here means, the universe or life must me like this so and so...without your moral standards, hence, you yourself must be indifferent to the sufferings or death. you are longing for a perfect universe from your moral standard, but the universe is simply the way it is...
jayendecastro; Again, like i said. I agree with the constants, the Lambda, emf, cc, gravity, etc.. those parameters created the environment that would later on produce life. LIFE is the universe is a fact. Thats why we're can discuss this matter now ryt? What i dont agree with is the "tuner" aspect of ur argument.
What ever the case that "tuner" may be the fact that this constant came in to be does not prove an existence of such.
let us be careful with our choice of words here. you used the word 'created'. to my understanding means, in this case, creation ex nihilo...how could you be even consistent to your arguments when you say that these constants or laws of phsyics 'created' the environment that later produced life? creation involves a purpose, the thing created or created ex nihilo presupposes an agency or power to produce a purposeful creation. when you speak of 'created' you already contradicted yourself. creation is vastly different from accidental or randomness.
i do not even say there must be a tuner. the statement 'there must be a tuner' is different from 'there maybe a tuner'.
the first statement is a hasty or jumping to conclusion. if the universe is fine tune, it does not necessarily follow that it has a fine tuner, an agency beyond the universe.
the second statement is scientific. it goes either way. there maybe a fine tuner or there maybe not. that is why we keep digging and exploring reality to confirm if the universe is actually fine tune by a fine tuner or a pure accident.
do you think the answer is already at hand?
jayendecastro;U mentioned the dinosaurs and other ancient creatures. The dinosaurs were wiped out by one of the Big 5... How does fine tuning applied to that if a number of mass extinctions have to happen?? Wudnt a fine tuned for life be more conducive?
i think you greatly misunderstood the fine tuning theory/argument. simply, the whole universe must be finely tuned to be well balanced, and then for life to emerge, evolved and later so intelligent that the universe sees itself thru life...
the laws in the universe must be delicately harmonized in order for life to emerge any even the smallest deviation of parameters/values will not make life possible.
the dinosaurs extinction is just a stage into the cosmic time scale. i have three points here to say..
1. the dinosaurs were wondrous creatures, a superb engineering. their biological structure were so amazing..imagine from simplest organism to such grandiose creatures..i must be in awe. to others maybe, these creatures were simply nothing but moving blobs in the planet millions of years ago, but to me, they were of great beauty, of superb engineering of whatever mechanisms run these living creatures.
2. when these creatures were extinct or wiped out, did life stop? did the universe deny the proliferation of other kind of biological life? again, in our cosmic time scale, the answer is no..since new forms life evolve..smaller yet of another kind of beauty and ultimately humans came into being.
3. if the universe is not conducive to life, how these biological creatures, from hundred of millions of years to present even exist? do you really grasp the profound impact of fine tuned universe? the universe is so conducive to life that milllions or even billions of life variety existed and existing..these living creatures come and go in the cosmic time scale..death and birth are necessary part of the universe. a cycle that is happening as long as this universe is stable..but, by that time, humans, milllion or billions of years from now can reshape or maintain the universe or even go beyond it. the universe is so vast that will allow humans to explore and invent new ways to maintain the planet. it is not the universe's fault if humankind will obliterate itself thru nuclear holocaust..maybe humans as we know today will go extinct in such stupid catastrophe and lowly forms life will eventually gradually evolve to take the humans place in this planet until they will learn such mistakes to be able to create technology to escape the sun's death or maintain the sun as it is now or escape the inevitable heat death of the universe...hundreds of millions of years or billions of years is a vast and very ample time to maybe even reverse the eventual death of the physical universe.
jayendecastro;Humility is accepting the fact that the universe made life and not that the universe was fine-tuned for life. I recognise that im not the end-goal here.
it is a matter of perspective. your statement above is your own perception of reality and your intellectual and moral stand.
to others, it is not. ex. if someone argues that he is the center of the universe, is he right or wrong? to you, he maybe lunatic saying to himself as the center of the universe..but in some sense, he is right. the center-ness of the universe always reside in the individual consciousness. the center of your universe is you, you can not escape that reality. the universe is as if having a one on one correspondence with you. the universe is seeing itself thru you. if you die, so the universe goes with you. what is the sense of this universe's beauty or grandeur if you die? it is nonsense for this universe's confirmation or affirmation of itself lies only thru you as the observer. in conclusion, do not be little the individual's perception of the universe when he says or humankind says it is in the center of the universe. the argument is not purely scientific but it is religious and philosophical. true, in this physical universe, we are not its center. very obvious, we need not to say that. let us just look at the mapped universe, we are not. it is isomorphic as to the present obervation. and even in our galaxy, we are at the edge. but the center-ness we are talking here is not only of physicality, it is a profound religious and philosophical issue as i stated already above. if you ask me if i am the center of the universe, yes, i am. i am the center of my universe as it relates to me..so you to..the center of the universe is you as it relates to you.
jayendecastro; I acknowledge the fact that mankind may know everything. I accept the constants. But i dont assert that it was set intentionally for life to exist.
that is not a complete exposition of the fine tuning theory or argument. it just states that the universe is finely tuned for life to emerge and evolve and later intelligent beings. 'intentionality' on the universe's part is just a religious, poetic, or theological add-in or flavor, however, of course, this is an another debate. it is a matter of perspective. to the religious, the fine tuned universe is God's making. it is the intentional making of God. what you failed to see in the fine tuning theory or argument is that the universe stands as finely tuned regardless of your beliefs.
jayendecastro;I asked about the other universe, i did not state or claim it as fact. I accept the constants, but not as fine-tuned. The multiverse is creatio ex materia, while the god concept and designer idea are creatio ex nihilo..
how do we even speak of a multiverse when we do not have evidence that it exists. do we have an empirical evidence or data? for the sake of speculation, this is tantamount to the GOD hypothesis. in an infinite possibilities, even the emergence or existence of God..now, why should you rule out the existence of God in the infinity of possibilities?i do not argue that there is a GOD..but from your logic on the possible existence of the multiverse does not rule out the logic of God in an infinity of space, time, and possibilities.i am also asking your numbers, equations, proofs...where are your mathematical statements disproving the fine tuning of the universe for life?do you even know the combinations on how simultaneously the DNA, RNA, ENZYMES, AMINO ACID, PROTEINS, GUANINE, CYTOCINE, ADENINE ETC ETC cooperate together just for the simplest and most primitive organism emerge? how could pure chance did this? and even digging further, these molecular structures were not living matter themselves..only by bizarre combinations that these molecular structures form life, and yet taken individually they themselves are not life..even digging deeper, these molecular structures were in fact atoms...and digging deeper, atoms are combinations of space, electrons, proton, neutrons...and digging deeper, leptons, muons, gluons. quarks....and digging deeper, there is the string...and digging deeper and so on, do you think this will end as long as there is an intelligence observing it?what we got here...it shows that there is no single irreducible matter..matter is just a matter of perspective. the atom itself is just a concept of smaller matter where this smaller matter is just a concept of smaller matter and so on until we come to think that these were just concepts or ideas that these were information that these informations were just the working of minds or ultimate mind/s observing.
Last edited:
Powered by Pancit Canton
Forum Guru
Mag obserba ka, nakakita ka ng lamesa na napakaganda ng design , ano nasa isip mo?
Diba ang unang maiisip mo siguro ay ang galing ng karpinterong gumawa ng lamesa?
Hindi mo man nakita kung paano nabuo ang lamesa alam mo sa sarili mo na karpintero ang nagpa iral sa lamesa dahil sa ipinapahiwatig na design ng lamesa at pagkakayari, bakit may iba ka pa bang maiisip kapag nakakita ka ng bagay na katulad ng lamesa? Iisipin mo ba na ang lamesa ay bigla na lang lumitaw yan dyan at pantay lahat ang paa tapos napaka gara ng desinyo
Ganun din dapat sa lahat ng bagay sa mundo, isipin mo lahat ay may purpose na ginagampanan upang magpatuloy ang daloy ng buhay
Katulad ng water cycle, napaka perfect niyan , halimbawa ang Photosynthesis kung paanong lahat ay nakikinabang at nagtutulungan para ma sustenihan ang buhay sa mundo sa pamamagitan ng hangin na nilalanghap ng lahat ng may buhay
Iisipin mo ba na produkto lahat yan ng isang pagsabog? Aksidente na sinasabi ng mga athiest na scientist? O talagang dini deny mo lang ang isang supreme being na siyang nagpairal, lumikha at nagdisenyo ng lahat ng bagay pati tayo?
Diba ang unang maiisip mo siguro ay ang galing ng karpinterong gumawa ng lamesa?
Hindi mo man nakita kung paano nabuo ang lamesa alam mo sa sarili mo na karpintero ang nagpa iral sa lamesa dahil sa ipinapahiwatig na design ng lamesa at pagkakayari, bakit may iba ka pa bang maiisip kapag nakakita ka ng bagay na katulad ng lamesa? Iisipin mo ba na ang lamesa ay bigla na lang lumitaw yan dyan at pantay lahat ang paa tapos napaka gara ng desinyo
Ganun din dapat sa lahat ng bagay sa mundo, isipin mo lahat ay may purpose na ginagampanan upang magpatuloy ang daloy ng buhay
Katulad ng water cycle, napaka perfect niyan , halimbawa ang Photosynthesis kung paanong lahat ay nakikinabang at nagtutulungan para ma sustenihan ang buhay sa mundo sa pamamagitan ng hangin na nilalanghap ng lahat ng may buhay
Iisipin mo ba na produkto lahat yan ng isang pagsabog? Aksidente na sinasabi ng mga athiest na scientist? O talagang dini deny mo lang ang isang supreme being na siyang nagpairal, lumikha at nagdisenyo ng lahat ng bagay pati tayo?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
-
-
-
The story of the Moon and the Sun - Created Eclipse.
- Started by Reen-Oath
- Replies: 0
-
Trivia Cebu's historic milestone: 'Tres de Abril'
- Started by Pulstarejdei
- Replies: 0
-
Popular Tags
about
amen
ang
april
as
atheist
beliefs
bible
bible verse
bible verses
christianity
daily
day
diyos
faith
father
gentleman007
god
grimlifehacks
heaven
heavenly father
in
january
jesus
life
love
march
mass
only
people
personal
philippine folklore
popular
prayer
psalms
reading
readings
religion
sagot ng bibliya
savior
that
the bible
trivia
verse
verses
way
what
why
you
your