The thing is: if there is a God, and if this God is in charge of everything, then the depression in the ground was designed to accommodate the water.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God
- Thread starter leroy
- Start date
rational experiences
Veteran Member
His story.....male the scientist, a human telling stories about the past where he never existed.
Says energy came about existing after the big bang. Variations to energy is by form in space.
Said I will name God O the Earth, a body of stone, and a planet as a human living upon its body. I am a scientist by self imposed title, a human agreement with my brothers. Human.
O God is stone energy he says, began as a self consuming energy body that stopped consuming itself. Now is held as stone. I will call it God.
Today asks is God real, how do you know as many science themes quote falsely that actual physical form is not physical by themes and stories and theories.
O God stone male quoted......how I know. I stone chemical mass converted in radiation sciences the body/planet God. It attacked and sacrificed my life by its core heart radiation ground release, which made sink holes in it. I removed God original sin. As by a human telling stories it was original sin....to burn as God O the mass in a Satanic past thesis.....in space, in Hell until Hell cooled.
Quote, when I removed its physical mass, I was sacrificed. I got irradiated from the ground. My water/oxygen got removed what sealed the stone to be mass. A hole opened, and the Satan particle mass fell into a deep pit hole. How I know.
Water evaporated as a huge ground release and then became cloud mass. My sacrifice of life formed clouds and images and visions and voices. As I saw all these effects by chemical brain and blood and cell and bone changes. Why I heard voices and how I saw visions. So I said God was real once. I removed God, so that is how I know God is real.....versus a theist who tries to quote that nothing is physical.
Why our Father said today try bodily walking through a stone mass and then try to tell everyone physical does not exist....by conditions your brains falsify information in chemical changes.
Says energy came about existing after the big bang. Variations to energy is by form in space.
Said I will name God O the Earth, a body of stone, and a planet as a human living upon its body. I am a scientist by self imposed title, a human agreement with my brothers. Human.
O God is stone energy he says, began as a self consuming energy body that stopped consuming itself. Now is held as stone. I will call it God.
Today asks is God real, how do you know as many science themes quote falsely that actual physical form is not physical by themes and stories and theories.
O God stone male quoted......how I know. I stone chemical mass converted in radiation sciences the body/planet God. It attacked and sacrificed my life by its core heart radiation ground release, which made sink holes in it. I removed God original sin. As by a human telling stories it was original sin....to burn as God O the mass in a Satanic past thesis.....in space, in Hell until Hell cooled.
Quote, when I removed its physical mass, I was sacrificed. I got irradiated from the ground. My water/oxygen got removed what sealed the stone to be mass. A hole opened, and the Satan particle mass fell into a deep pit hole. How I know.
Water evaporated as a huge ground release and then became cloud mass. My sacrifice of life formed clouds and images and visions and voices. As I saw all these effects by chemical brain and blood and cell and bone changes. Why I heard voices and how I saw visions. So I said God was real once. I removed God, so that is how I know God is real.....versus a theist who tries to quote that nothing is physical.
Why our Father said today try bodily walking through a stone mass and then try to tell everyone physical does not exist....by conditions your brains falsify information in chemical changes.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Physical laws are descriptive not proscriptive. The blocks do not have to know anything.
It depends. For example, the free parameters of the standard model lack any theoretical justification or explanation but are extracted through the standard regularization and renormalization schemes. One crucial problem, both from an operational perspective and a theoretical one, is incredible degree of fine-tuning to the necessary quantum corrections required for the divergences when the parameters are supposed to be independent of one another. Fine-tuning of this sort in mean field theory and many-body physics (e.g., condensed matter physics, statistical field theory, even fluid dynamics!) is not an issue because the cutoffs and regularizations are not supposed to be fundamental but are calculated from known physical forces or constraints that we are ignoring or summing over or otherwise "subtracting" and replacing in order to make problems tractable. In the standard model, the delicate corrections and cancellations required cannot be so justified. Even from an EFT perspective, that so many supposedly independent parameters should require such precision in order for the most fundamental physical theory in existence to make any sense at all is a problem. But whether one views it as a problem that should be solved by a more fundamental theory that explains it or a change in how we interpret both the "bare" terms and the renormalization schemes used (or both!) is a matter of debate.
This is without getting into the difficulties (again, operational as well as theoretical) of trying to explain the difficulties faced the delicate fine-tuning processes when one tries to seek answers from models where the parameters can take on different values or be explained by underlying parameters which do or in which we examine the interrelationships by altering known parameters and so forth.
Things are worse when it comes to issues of the cosmological constant because even if the standard model requires so many unexplained, unjustified parameters when it is supposed to be as fundamental as it gets, at least we are able to obtain predictions (or in the case of QCD and other similar or smaller scale processes, finite) results. This is not true of gravitation, which is a non-renormalizable force and thus there isn't even an answer as to how we might go about trying explain the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant and other such parameters, still less why it is that again the precision required (in this case not just operationally but also for the universe to exist) is so fine.
Almost nothing about the above is correct. Firstly, it only "arises" from the mathematics as one class of solutions to resolve metaphysical or aesthetic issues of a particular sort. Second, most of the relevant mathematics comes from as yet unformulated speculations about what would be required in particular BSM theories should they ever be formulated (still less tested).
"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science."
from the editor's introduction to Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.
Thirdly, it is indeed true that a central justification for multiverse cosmologies is a sort of Copernican-like principle in which even something like the cosmological constants and other values that enter into cosmological models in BSM physics (rather than into HEP equations or particle physics per se) can be explained as simply inevitable given the vast numbers of existing universes. This is a decades old explanation that has been "strengthened" in a certain sense over the past ~30 years or so in particular.
But even (perhaps especially) its propenents stress repeatedly how it serves to explain the particular precision and fine-tuning of cosmological and standard model paramers, e.g.:
"If our universe is just one among very many in an enormous multiverse, then observed universes will be those that contain certain complex structures necessary for observers. Such arguments from environmental selection can potentially solve the cosmological constant problem, and yield a statistical prediction for the dark energy in observed universes. In this paper, we consider the extent to which nuclear stability and electroweak symmetry breaking provide evidence for environmental selection.
Many physicists, however, are reluctant to countenance any form of anthropic argument...Why make the extraordinary leap of postulating an extra-horizon multiverse, which has the smell of a secular form of God? In short, many believe that appeals to the environment are an escape from true science and that, in the absence of data confirming the conventional symmetry approach, it would be better to change fields than to succumb to the philosophy of anthropics.
The case of the cosmological constant demolishes these arguments. Traditional methods have not given any satisfactory understanding for why the cosmological constant is small. In contrast, the environmental argument not only explains why it must be small, but makes a statistical prediction for a nonzero value..to make an observer. Of course, the prediction does require a multiverse..."
Hall, L. J., & Nomura, Y. (2008). Evidence for the Multiverse in the Standard Model and Beyond. Physical Review D, 78(3), 035001.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your familiarity of the literature and debate here is limited to popular media, and further that you are not familiar with the relevant distinctions between so-called fine-tuning arguments of the type theists make and the more general issues of naturalness (including so-called technical naturalness but also the more general principles initiated by Dirac) and fine-tuning either in particle physics or cosmology.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
joelr wrote," The building blocks of the universe obey the laws of quantum mechanics."
Do the building blocks of the Universe even know that there are laws of quantum mechanics it has to obey, please? Right, please?
Regards
joelr wrote," The building blocks of the universe obey the laws of quantum mechanics."
Do the building blocks of the Universe even know that there are laws of quantum mechanics it has to obey, please? Right, please?
Why use the natural word "obey" when the building blocks of the Universe don't hear to obey, meaning no consciousness/life please?
Regards
leroy
Well-Known Member
Sure the universe seems to be like a “Rube Goldberg machine (RGM)”, for example if you what to light a Christmas tree you can ether just press a switch and do it, or you can use a Rube Goldberg machine………..it is completely valid to ask why would someone use a RGM given that there are simpler and more practical mechanisms…….but one doesn’t conclude therefore no design.
And the Egyptians could have created a small 2m x 1m tomb rather than those big pyramids……….but the answer is very simple, perhaps they had an other goal in mind besides burring a body.
So the same can be said about the universe. Perhaps God has an other goal in mind
Perhaps other stars and galaxies will be usefull by humans in the future, perhaps there is life in other planets who need those stars, perhaps God is an artist and considers that a big universe with many stars is nice, perhaps God created a universe with low entropy simply to make fun of atheist and chance hypothesis.
leroy
Well-Known Member
It is improbable if you assume that these values came by chance……….if you say “gravity could have any value” it would be improbable for gravity to have a life permitting value rather than a life prohibiting.(assuming that each value is equally probable)
If you are not making such an assumption then the improbability argument doesn’t apply to you……………..but since you never explain your views and position it´s hard to know if you would affirm or reject “chance” as an explanation.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
The thing is: if there is a God, and if this God is in charge of everything, then the depression in the ground was designed to accommodate the water.
That's like saying that your evidence for the claim that Pigs Can Fly! Is: IF pigs had wings THEN they could fly!
No it isn't.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But no one is making that assumption. Don't accuse others of your own sins.
By the way, the Fine Tuning argument is still an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, once again I understand that English is a second language for you. "Obey" can simply mean follow in this usage. A rock "obeys" the law of gravity. In other words a rock drops when you let it go in a gravitational field. There is no conscious decision. Words have multiple meanings in English. I am not sure if your native language is the same, but there probably are such examples. Once again learn the difference between descriptive and proscriptive.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Yes, many people (including many scientist) would claim that the FT is a product of chance. … for example if the mass of the electron was given by a random quantum event, then it would be chance.
But if you reject chance then ok we both agree on this point,
No, it´s an appeal to the best explanation, if you think that there is a better explanation than design; feel free to share that explanation.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Of course it is. The argument is that evidence for god's existence is that the Earth suits life and human life perfectly and therefore MUST be designed. The puddle after a rainstorm analogy demonstrates the fallacy of such an argument. So you say; But IF God DID create everything THEN the hole in the ground WAS specifically designed for the rain water.
So we're still waiting for your evidence that your creator god actually created anything.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone wrote," There is no conscious decision."
So, it is a poetic expression or usage of the natural word "obey" , one doesn't mean that the Universe has any consciousness to obey. It is the commandments of the Creator G-d that the Universe and everything in it obeys, and these commandments are understood by some, though wrongly, as if the natural laws are being obeyed, please. Right, please?
Regards
Tell "We" I said hi.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Citation needed. You may be misunderstanding articles.
Nope, you would have to show that a god is the best explanation and you cannot even show that a god is possible. Until you do that all you have is an argument from ignorance.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not "poetic", but yes, it is merely another way of saying that materials react in predictable manners. There is no implication of the existence or nonexistence of a god when using terms in this manner. And I would drop the term "commandments". There is no evidence of a being that makes such commands. Once again, physical laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. That means that they describe what occurs. They do not order what occurs. There does not appear to be any need of a being that makes such orders. If one wants to claim that such a being exists then one takes on a burden of proof when one does so.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not necessarily.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Except it's true. The best argument I heard about why are monkeys not morphing into different forms of monkeys, lol, is that "not enough time has passed by for humans to see it." As my beatnik friends would have said "Yeah, right."
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
? What about a not perfectly round hole?