Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[paarsurrey]

Where did this "G-d" character make this claim? There does not appear to be any evidence supporting your claims. Why would any rational person believe them?

The Claim:
[67:2] تَبٰرَکَ الَّذِیۡ بِیَدِہِ الۡمُلۡکُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرُ ۣۙ﴿۲﴾
Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
[67:3] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ الۡمَوۡتَ وَ الۡحَیٰوۃَ لِیَبۡلُوَکُمۡ اَیُّکُمۡ اَحۡسَنُ عَمَلًا ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡغَفُوۡرُ ۙ﴿۳﴾
Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[67:4] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ سَبۡعَ سَمٰوٰتٍ طِبَاقًا ؕ مَا تَرٰی فِیۡ خَلۡقِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ مِنۡ تَفٰوُتٍ ؕ فَارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ ۙ ہَلۡ تَرٰی مِنۡ فُطُوۡرٍ ﴿۴﴾
Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
[67:5] ثُمَّ ارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ کَرَّتَیۡنِ یَنۡقَلِبۡ اِلَیۡکَ الۡبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَّ ہُوَ حَسِیۡرٌ ﴿۵﴾
Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return unto thee confused and fatigued.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 67: Al-Mulk
Right, please?

Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FT: The claim that some values (force of gravity, expansion of the universe, size of the particles, entropy, electromagnetic force etc.) fall within a narrow rage of life permitting values, such that if the values where a little bit different life would not be possible.

But what's the possible range for those values (and how do you know)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Claim:
[67:2] تَبٰرَکَ الَّذِیۡ بِیَدِہِ الۡمُلۡکُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرُ ۣۙ﴿۲﴾
Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
[67:3] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ الۡمَوۡتَ وَ الۡحَیٰوۃَ لِیَبۡلُوَکُمۡ اَیُّکُمۡ اَحۡسَنُ عَمَلًا ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡغَفُوۡرُ ۙ﴿۳﴾
Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[67:4] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ سَبۡعَ سَمٰوٰتٍ طِبَاقًا ؕ مَا تَرٰی فِیۡ خَلۡقِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ مِنۡ تَفٰوُتٍ ؕ فَارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ ۙ ہَلۡ تَرٰی مِنۡ فُطُوۡرٍ ﴿۴﴾
Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
[67:5] ثُمَّ ارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ کَرَّتَیۡنِ یَنۡقَلِبۡ اِلَیۡکَ الۡبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَّ ہُوَ حَسِیۡرٌ ﴿۵﴾
Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return unto thee confused and fatigued.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 67: Al-Mulk
Right, please?

Regards

And empty claims like those are worthless. You also appear to be confused. The Christians have already copywrited the phrase "the word of God". Are you talking about the Muslim god or the Christian god?

 

[Valjean]

1. G-d has claimed it, there is no other claimant.
2. G-d not only created life but he sustains it also.

Right, please?

No Paarsurrey. Not right.
1. What evidence do you have that God claimed it? What evidence do you have that there i
2. A 'competing claimant' assumes the initial premise.
3. #2 is another unevidenced claim.
Making unevidenced claims is just preaching. Many religions do it, and make different claims. Without evidence, all are equally unlikely.

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Ten-Proofs-for-The-Existence-of-God.pdf

These are simply not proofs. Moreover, they are full of falsehoods, legends as premises, and Quranic quotations as evidence.
If you want details I can go into them proof-by-proof.

 

[Heyo]

1. G-d has claimed it, there is no other claimant.
2. G-d not only created life but he sustains it also.

Right, please?

Wrong.

Even if we accept, for the arguments sake, that the universe is finely tuned, the simulation hypothesis fits all the criteria a "god" fits.
I.e. we could be computer generated conscious programs in a simulation set up by a team of scientists in an enveloping "real" world.
So, if you don't agree that that team of scientists is equal to your idea of god, there is a second claimant.

 

[Valjean]

The Claim:
[67:2] تَبٰرَکَ الَّذِیۡ بِیَدِہِ الۡمُلۡکُ ۫ وَ ہُوَ عَلٰی کُلِّ شَیۡءٍ قَدِیۡرُ ۣۙ﴿۲﴾
Blessed is He in Whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things;
[67:3] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ الۡمَوۡتَ وَ الۡحَیٰوۃَ لِیَبۡلُوَکُمۡ اَیُّکُمۡ اَحۡسَنُ عَمَلًا ؕ وَ ہُوَ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡغَفُوۡرُ ۙ﴿۳﴾
Who has created death and life that He might try you — which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.
[67:4] الَّذِیۡ خَلَقَ سَبۡعَ سَمٰوٰتٍ طِبَاقًا ؕ مَا تَرٰی فِیۡ خَلۡقِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ مِنۡ تَفٰوُتٍ ؕ فَارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ ۙ ہَلۡ تَرٰی مِنۡ فُطُوۡرٍ ﴿۴﴾
Who has created seven heavens in harmony. No incongruity canst thou see in the creation of the Gracious God. Then look again: Seest thou any flaw?
[67:5] ثُمَّ ارۡجِعِ الۡبَصَرَ کَرَّتَیۡنِ یَنۡقَلِبۡ اِلَیۡکَ الۡبَصَرُ خَاسِئًا وَّ ہُوَ حَسِیۡرٌ ﴿۵﴾
Aye, look again, and yet again, thy sight will only return unto thee confused and fatigued.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 67: Al-Mulk
Right, please?

Regards

So you quote claims from a book. Subduction Zone's question remains: why should any rational person believe this?
I could quote The Chronicles of Narnia or The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster just as easily. Would you believe them just cause I quoted them, or would you want some supporting evidence?

Empty claims are useless.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Empty claims are useless.

But Valjian, the religious have only those. What can they do?

 

[Valjean]

But Valjian, the religious have only those. What can they do?

Switch to the rational team?

 

[ChristineM]

That all depends upon how one defines "monkeys". If both Old World and New World monkeys are "monkeys" then by cladistics we are too.

Easy to tell, apes have no tail, humans have no tail. Dah, darrrr

 

[Aupmanyav]

Switch to the rational team?

Stupid of me not to think of it. Yes, that is so simple.

 

[Mock Turtle]

1. G-d has claimed it, there is no other claimant.
2. G-d not only created life but he sustains it also.

Right, please?

Regards
_____________
FIFTH PROOF: page 22
Appropriate Tuning
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Ten-Proofs-for-The-Existence-of-God.pdf

Just a small matter of an intermediary (and one of many) being involved - which you happen to believe has passed on truths and which many don't. So? Not exactly conclusive evidence is it?

 

[Heyo]

Easy to tell, apes have no tail, humans have no tail. Dah, darrrr

Do you need a refreshing course in cladistics?

 

[ChristineM]

Do you need a refreshing course in cladistics?

Nope, our recent ancestors didnt have tails either. Monkeys and apes split over 25 million years ago, i dont think that is covered in cladistics

 

[paarsurrey]

So you quote claims from a book. Subduction Zone's question remains: why should any rational person believe this?
I could quote The Chronicles of Narnia or The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster just as easily. Would you believe them just cause I quoted them, or would you want some supporting evidence?

Empty claims are useless.

Who is a rational person, please?
What one understand from the natural word "rational", please. Please give one's own understanding not from a lexicon. Right, please?

Regards

 

[leroy]

But what's the possible range for those values (and how do you know)?

For example gravity is balanced whitin 1 part in 10^15

If it would have been 0.00000000000001% stronger or weaker the universe would have collapsed in a black hole of expand too quickly such that stars would never form. Making life impossible in ether scenario.

This is not controversial stuff, this is not religious stuff, the so called FT problem is widely described in secular sources.

 

[ChristineM]

For example gravity is balanced whitin 1 part in 10^15

If it would have been 0.00000000000001% stronger or weaker the universe would have collapsed in a black hole of expand too quickly such that stars would never form. Making life impossible in ether scenario.

This is not controversial stuff, this is not religious stuff, the so called FT problem is widely described in secular sources.

Interesting, where does that number come from because as far as i understand it the interaction between the higgs particle and gravity prevented the early universe from collapsing and gravity simply needed to be there, the force is not a factor.

 

[exchemist]

For example gravity is balanced whitin 1 part in 10^15

If it would have been 0.00000000000001% stronger or weaker the universe would have collapsed in a black hole of expand too quickly such that stars would never form. Making life impossible in ether scenario.

This is not controversial stuff, this is not religious stuff, the so called FT problem is widely described in secular sources.

Interesting. Do you have a reference for the claim about gravitation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For example gravity is balanced whitin 1 part in 10^15

If it would have been 0.00000000000001% stronger or weaker the universe would have collapsed in a black hole of expand too quickly such that stars would never form. Making life impossible in ether scenario.

You're not answering my question. What's the range that the gravitational constant could have been?

To use an analogy: the odds of having 5 "ones" come up in a row depends greatly on whether you're rolling 6-sided dice, 20-sided dice, or just have the number painted on the table 5 times.

This is not controversial stuff, this is not religious stuff, the so called FT problem is widely described in secular sources.

The religious and controversial part is where you assume that life was inevitable.

Let's say for argument's sake that the parameters of the universe could have been wildly different, and the odds of life arising in this universe were very low; what does that get you?

If we're being rational about it, all it means is that life is a rare, precious accident.

... and no matter what your youth pastor has told you, there's no level of unlikelihood where something becomes impossible. The less likely life was, the more special the accident is and the more lucky we are... that's it.

And BTW: even if you're talking about which alternative is more likely, you're missing half the picture if you don't address the likelihood of God. I mean, you haven't even bothered to establish that God is even possible.

 

[wellwisher]

The best argument for God comes from science. It is connected to something I noticed about the second law that nobody else seemed to notice.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. For entropy to increase it needs to absorb energy. If you put that together, the second law implies that the inertial universe is loosing re-useable energy, since energy is being tied up as ever increasing entropy. This energy is conserved, but not in way that is net reusable by the universe since entropy has to increase. I call this dead pool energy.

There is pool of energy, connected to entropy, that is accumulating. The universe is leaking energy into a dead pool with this energy not reusable in any net way by the inertial universe, due to the second law. However, this energy is conserved and therefore has its own properties.

Since dead pool energy is conserved and connected to entropy, one way to describe it may be the lingering memories of past entropy states. Entropy is a state variable meaning for any given state there is a specific measurable amount of entropy. The dead pool energy is sort of like the memories of the past; soul of the universe. For example, the big bang was a unique series of entropic states that occurred but which may not occur again in this universe. The amount of reusable energy is lower today. These memories linger through the trajectory of the universe, from which we can infer these early dead pool states.

Physics needs to overhaul its theory base since all seem to leave out this pool of energy that is being lost by the material universe. Dead pool energy is connected to what we perceive as the flow of time. Time moves to the future. It does not reverse and cycle like a wave, since to do so would require violation of the second law; reversal of entropy to retrieve lost energy. The universal energy was higher in the past and a reversal would be needed to retrieve the extra needed energy so one could duplicate the past. Moving to the future means to a state of lower universal energy, which is provide for by the second law.

In the limit there will only be dead pool energy and memories of past entropic states.

 

[ChristineM]

The best argument for God comes from science. It is connected to something I noticed about the second law that nobody else seemed to notice.

The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. For entropy to increase it needs to absorb energy. If you put that together, the second law implies that the inertial universe is loosing re-useable energy, since energy is being tied up as ever increasing entropy. This energy is conserved, but not in way that is net reusable by the universe since entropy has to increase. I call this dead pool energy.

There is pool of energy, connected to entropy, that is accumulating. The universe is leaking energy into a dead pool with this energy not reusable in any net way by the inertial universe, due to the second law. However, this energy is conserved and therefore has its own properties.

Since dead pool energy is conserved and connected to entropy, one way to describe it may be the lingering memories of past entropy states. Entropy is a state variable meaning for any given state there is a specific measurable amount of entropy. The dead pool energy is sort of like the memories of the past; soul of the universe. For example, the big bang was a unique series of entropic states that occurred but which may not occur again in this universe. The amount of reusable energy is lower today. These memories linger through the trajectory of the universe, from which we can infer these early dead pool states.

Physics needs to overhaul its theory base since all seem to leave out this pool of energy that is being lost by the material universe. Dead pool energy is connected to what we perceive as the flow of time. Time moves to the future. It does not reverse and cycle like a wave, since to do so would require violation of the second law; reversal of entropy to retrieve lost energy. The universal energy was higher in the past and a reversal would be needed to retrieve the extra needed energy so one could duplicate the past. Moving to the future means to a state of lower universal energy, which is provide for by the second law.

In the limit there will only be dead pool energy and memories of past entropic states.

Only the 1st law of thermodynamics contradicts that argument. Interesting eh?