-
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!
Is the universe orderly?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
With all due respect it seems you know very little about the fine tuning argument. At least the argument as its presented formally. It's not my 'go to evidence' to support an ID exists, but it is evidence nevertheless. The fine tuning argument came from inferences of advanced mathematics, astronomy, and cosmology astrophysics and other branches of theoretical physics and mathematics. One example of why our universe is so special and so unlikely to have come about by natural means is the brain work work from the famous 'religious skeptic' (I think he claims to be an atheist) and famous mathematician Roger Penrose. Here is a explanation of how unlikely that our universe could have formed by chance. The number Penrose calculated the odds of our particular universe arising by chance is 1/1010^123.!!! To get an idea of just how low those odds are, if that number were written out, it would contain vastly more zeros than there are atoms in the known universe! I would be happy to provide you a link or ten of where that number came from if you like.
There are more evidences, many more and anyone with a computer can veiw them by mashing a few buttons, lol. Neevertheless all you will find is a lot of evdience to show the Universe is fine tuned and it is designed with a lot of self taught (in theology and cosmology) atheists in denial hollering otherwise. One last comment. I am not bashing self teaching, I admire those that take that difficult road to learning. I am bashing arm chair religious phobic skeptics.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Hmmm' maybe that was a Fraulein slip?
Probably, any other Universe would have had the same very low probability. And probably any of these possible Universes would have unique characteristics that will emerge if it comes to existence. Assuming a concept of probability would be applicable. And that Universes pop out randomly.
So, if there are zillions possible different Universes with the same probability of popping out, and one of them pops out randomly, then we could always say it had 1/zillion probability to pop out at the beginning. Yet, it now exists. Because it popped out randomly.
Do you think it is weird and requiring an explanation beyond the random popping out?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
What are the statistical odds that you exist, exactly as you do now, at this point in history, given all the variables from the beginning on time?
Any idea?
As you attempt to work that number out, you'll begin to see why the basis of the argument that you're making is rather pointless.
The odds of anything being exactly as they appear currently are astronomical because you're only allowing for one possible outcome. It's a flawed equation, and it doesn't matter what ideology you subscribe to or how many degrees you have in advanced anything... The more variables that you add to the required outcome (the more precise you make it) only amplifies the problem.
What are the statistical odds that a guy named Joe Namath would exist?
What are the statistical odds that a guy named Joe Namath would play a football game invented by a man named Walter Camp, play the quarterback position, and throw 206 yards in Super Bowl III beating the Colts 16-7 in 1969?
What are those odds, on the astronomical scale?
You can cite for me any and all sources that you have - but the fact will remain that they are mathematically flawed.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Oh Mud all that and you forgot to cap the 'F' ! That said, are you my grammar teacher reincarnate? Or maybe its because I thought Jung was a genius and Freud a fraud I made those mistakes? Or could it simply be could be two Freudian slips in a row? . Anyway, the true explanation for my mistakes in basic grammar is that I too am partly self taught after middle school. Add to that I attended a mishmash of colleges to complete my undergraduate studies as well l as gaining a higher degree mostly by mistake! It's the self taught thing that causes me high anxiety when speaking in public especially debating in public and why I am hard on those that are self taught, or seem to be. When they make ignorant statements or just pepper their word salad with false statements etc it makes sustaining my own credibility that much more difficult. Just some background. May I ask, are you a teacher or something similar in real life? Not a bad thing at all.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Maybe I didn't explain the Penrose equation properly. He was calculating the odds of a universe capable of supporting a carbon based life form. There are specific things and conditions necessary for life to exist. All those other universes ie 1 to the 123rd power were universes that could not support life. So that's what the whole equation is about! There are zillions of non-life sustaining universes that come up for every life sustaining universe. That happens per EACH EVENT. So I cant agree with your assessment.
No No no no! (sorry) This equation only shows how unlikely it is for a special universe is to exist per event ! That number is one to an nearly infinite number against.
YES! beyond yes. What if you lost a quint trillion hands at a black jack table (the real number is too time consuming to type). Would you think the game just might be rigged? If not come on down and lets play a few hands of friendly poker? Really I may not be explaining this thing right. I know what it means but trying to type it out is difficult, anyone care to help (but only if you agree with me, lol)...Oh Viole, sorry for cooking off a bit, I like your curiosity and your dedication to stick to what you believe, with claws even.
Thanks for your reply viole ~
Last edited:
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
The variables that Penrose uses were well known, ie gravity and physics of nuclear-synthesis etc. But to answer your question I would say 100%, if you do not account for quantum uncertainty.
Well tell that to Penrose and the hundreds if not thousands of scientists who agree with him. So if you dont take the evidences of science and don't take the evidences of cosmological and ontological arguments and don't take the evidences of arguments such as the fine tuning arguments what kind of evidences do you accept?
You are comparing apples with oranges. It does not take as much as you think to show that a universe with only a slightly different set of natural laws could or could not support life as we know it ie that employs organic chemistry. That was what the experiment equation was meant to show.
I am sure a prob and stat guy could tell you
Excellent depending on the information available. The information available to penrose was excellent therefore his work was published etc.
How do you know, lol? Really its not as difficult as you make it out to be. Really! As I said the fine tuning is not my favorite evidence but it is a piece of evidence that makes sense. when and if it fails etc I will discard it. On a percentage basis its only say, two or three percent of evidence, compared to everything that convinces me its more rational logical and reasonable to assume that God, and intelligent creator, exists.
Thanks for your reply ~
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Can you break that out with an edit. I have no way to directly respond.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Look at post #71. You've synched your replies into my answers and I can't break your stuff out point by point unless you go back and edit the quote boxes to make them separate.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
It's probably just a misplaced "quote" box at the very top.
Look, I usually enjoy to address the FTA from a position of disadvantage. Because it is fun. It is like fighting with just one arm and still winning. But tonight I am lazy, so I will simply destroy the necessity of its conclusions in the most direct way.
If carbon life cries for an explanation (big if) and we can exclude a random unlikely process, then I can think of at least two alternatives:
1) someone with an obsession for carbon life created the Universe finely tuned for carbon life
2) there is a huge, possibly infinite, multitude of universes. One, or more than one, have neccesarily the conditions for carbon life
Now what?
Ciao
- viole
McBell
Unbound
Great.
he has done HALF the work.
Now all he needs do is calculate the odds of god existing using the same criteria he used for the odds of the universe.
And yes, please present the links to his math.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Found it, thanks for pointing out my error.
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Lol funny. But I will comment regardless. I think (1) is a possible scenario. Even if the creator is a long lived species that could be as much as 12 or more billion years more advanced than we are. If that were the case Homo sapiens, ie wise man would be lower than an earth worm or even a bacteria on the evolutionary scale.
Lastly can someone tell me what the FTA is I am fairly new to forums and although I think I know what it means I'm not sure...
(2) I reject the MWI for lack of evidence and the main theory of science supposes for now there is only evidence for one universe that is falsifiable and testable. If yu must cling to science you must use the rules of science and the scientific method when defending your ideas. So far you haven't. It doesn't matter if that is due to lack of education in the areas you make errors or if you are simply hoping I don't notice your errors. Or to give you the benefit of the doubt, I suppose the reason you find it so easy to rebut members is because you do not read our replies. For instance I have already answered your question in this thread. However you seem to wish to cling to the existence of multiverses to support your atheistic (it seems) concerns when for the last 100 years the one universe theory (NOT the MWI ie the many worlds or universes interpretation) was and is still the accepted theory. So for the third time we must necessarily (lol) look at the fine tuned universe problem with the supposition that only one universe exists because the multiverse is only a less than main theory, because there is far less evidence (most scientists say there is NO evidence that supports more than one universe exists). If you must cling to an UNTESTED theory because and only because of a disdain for metaphysics then you are basing your hope on faith not science. Welcome to the fold, from one meta-physician' to another!
(ignore attachment)
Attachments
MrMrdevincamus
Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
There are no known variables for God. The natural world is well known in comparison. Yes I will do provide a link, even though its a well known story in science as well as popular reads. Try this one;
Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind,; Michael Denton, Nature’s Destiny, The New York: The Free Press Books Collection/Penrose...
Use a search engine to find The Emperor’s New Mind in PDF then Go to page nine Mes....It describes the methods and math used.
in the meantime here is a review of Penrose's material I found while searching for your link.
The Mathematics of Probability Refutes “Coincidence”
What has been said so far shows the extraordinary balances among the forces that make human life possible in this universe. The speed of the Big Bang’s explosion, the values of the four fundamental forces, and all the other variables that we will be examining in the chapters ahead and which are vital for existence have been arranged according to an extraordinary precision.
Let us now make a brief digression and consider the coincidence theory of materialism. Coincidence is a mathematical term and the possibility of an event’s occurrence can be calculated using the mathematics of probability. Let’s do so.
THE PROBABILITY OF THE OCCURRENCE OF A UNIVERSE IN WHICH LIFE CAN FORM
The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 1010123. The phrase “extremely unlikely” is inadequate to describe this possibility.
10100000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
Taking the physical variables into account, what is the likelihood of a universe giving us life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more?
Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required for human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results of the Big Bang.
According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 1010123 to 1.
It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value 10123 means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But Penrose’s answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that has 1 followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it’s called a million; if nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a name for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means “zero probability”. Penrose’s number is more than trillion trillion trillion times less than that. In short, Penrose’s number tellsus that the ‘accidental” or “coincidental” Creation of our universe is an impossibility.
Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
This now tells how precise the Creator’s aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0’s. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe–and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure–we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.26
~
Last edited: