Evidence for God from Science

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Escape from science to metaphysics? LOL. The multiverse theory, it's so cute. It's not science.

I never mentioned or implied multiverses. I talked of conceivably possible universes in a stastical sense which is the what fine tuning does and so is the formal way to analyse the idea.

And I don't know how Byblos got his number of 1 in 10^37 being the chances we had at being here-especially when the probabllity of a 100 amino acid protein coming into being naturally is by itself 1 in 10^64 :-p LOL.

What ever the number no one in this thread has explained how they derive that there are a squillion conceivable universes and but only one of those squillion is capable of supporting life.

The maps were drawn based (hopefully...) on the geography of the earth-so non-sequitor.

Precisely. Physical constants were derived based (hopefully..) on the cosmology of the universe-so non-sequitor.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Come on now, are you really questioning the very science you always quote? the ratio of the proton's size to the neutron's and its deviation probability are well established facts. As are the numbers governing the strength of gravity, or the cosmological constant, and many others. Here's a link that contains some quotes by well known scientists (who are also atheists) but I do not post it for the quotes but for the 25 or so scientific references on the bottom of the page.

You are confusing scientific theories with thoughts and ideas of individual scientists. As to the validity of your argument, its a number game your playing, see my post above. Calculating the probability of different constants does not take into account if those alternative possibilities are imaginary or not. And the variables used in any calculation for the probability of our universe are arbitrary.

Thank you BGood for always pointing out my confusion. I must be walking around in a constant daze. Those numbers I am referencing have been scrutinized by the some of the best scientific minds of the era (most of whom, by the way, are either atheists or agnostics). I think we need to contact them immediately and tell them they are confused and need to seek medical attention. Like I stated before, you can put any spin you wish on them (multi-universe, infinite line ergo the probability is zero (I had good chuckle on that one) or whatever). That does not make them any less valid or any less thought-provoking.

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Come on now, are you really questioning the very science you always quote? the ratio of the proton's size to the neutron's and its deviation probability are well established facts. As are the numbers governing the strength of gravity, or the cosmological constant, and many others. Here's a link that contains some quotes by well known scientists (who are also atheists) but I do not post it for the quotes but for the 25 or so scientific references on the bottom of the page.

You are confusing scientific theories with thoughts and ideas of individual scientists. As to the validity of your argument, its a number game your playing, see my post above. Calculating the probability of different constants does not take into account if those alternative possibilities are imaginary or not. And the variables used in any calculation for the probability of our universe are arbitrary.

Thank you BGood for always pointing out my confusion. I must be walking around in a constant daze. Those numbers I am referencing have been scrutinized by the some of the best scientific minds of the era (most of whom, by the way, are either atheists or agnostics). I think we need to contact them immediately and tell them they are confused and need to seek medical attention. Like I stated before, you can put any spin you wish on them (multi-universe, infinite line ergo the probability is zero (I had good chuckle on that one) or whatever). That does not make them any less valid or any less thought-provoking.

Be my guest, contact them and tell them that BGood knows as well as they do that the probability is not a scientific theory but more a thought experiment.

Thought provoking yes, The be all end all of the discussion no.

The "agreed upon probability" is not agreed upon at all. There is insufficient knowledge to take all mathematical probabilities into account. We don't know how many possible Univereses there are because there is only one to experience for us. We cannot know if other universes can support life for the same reason. This probability is a guestimation at best and a fairy tale at worst.

Lets take a good look at some of your "variables".
Strong nuclear force
Weak nuclear force
Electromagnetic force
Ratio of protons to neutrons
Ratio of protons to electrons

Now what if it turns out that all of these are related. That a change to one will in effect change all of them. What then does it then become irrelevant what the value is because the value is relatively the same.

In other words let us imagine that there is some relationship between certain physical constants.

Whether we measure it in centimeters, cubits, or feet it is still the same relative measurement.

Blob wrote:

And I don't know how Byblos got his number of 1 in 10^37 being the chances we had at being here-especially when the probabllity of a 100 amino acid protein coming into being naturally is by itself 1 in 10^64 :-p LOL.

What ever the number no one in this thread has explained how they derive that there are a squillion conceivable universes and but only one of those squillion is capable of supporting life.

Here's a link to Dr. Ned Wright's site at UCLA. Dr. Wright is a PHD in astrophysics. Check out the paragraph titled Flatness-Oldness Problem in particular. Yet another example of the fine-tuning of the universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#FO

Another site (from the University of Oregon) that better describes 4 topics related to fine-tuning:

. Horizon problem
. Flatness problem (again)
. Cosmological constant
. Matter/Anti-Matter asymetry

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/le ... ure-9.html

More fine-tuning data

http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/finetuning.html

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:We don't know how many possible Univereses there are because there is only one to experience for us. We cannot know if other universes can support life for the same reason. This probability is a guestimation at best and a fairy tale at worst.

The multi-universe explanation is certainly a counter-argument to design and I already stated that it could very well be. The only thing is, it requires as much a leap of faith, if not more, as design does. Furthermore, it leaves us with the two nagging questions of who created the multi-universes and why. Back to square one.

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:We don't know how many possible Univereses there are because there is only one to experience for us. We cannot know if other universes can support life for the same reason. This probability is a guestimation at best and a fairy tale at worst.

The multi-universe explanation is certainly a counter-argument to design and I already stated that it could very well be. The only thing is, it requires as much a leap of faith, if not more, as design does. Furthermore, it leaves us with the two nagging questions of who created the multi-universes and why. Back to square one.

That's not what I meant! =P
You're taking it out of context, your probability posits that there are many possible states the universe could have taken, but having seen no other state it can only be mere speculation.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:We don't know how many possible Univereses there are because there is only one to experience for us. We cannot know if other universes can support life for the same reason. This probability is a guestimation at best and a fairy tale at worst.

The multi-universe explanation is certainly a counter-argument to design and I already stated that it could very well be. The only thing is, it requires as much a leap of faith, if not more, as design does. Furthermore, it leaves us with the two nagging questions of who created the multi-universes and why. Back to square one.

That's not what I meant! =P
You're taking it out of context, your probability posits that there are many possible states the universe could have taken, but having seen no other state it can only be mere speculation.

Don't know what your point is. My posts refer to the degree of fine-tuning; your argument was that fine-tuning may not be at all since many different possibilities exist, one of which is the mutli-universe (which, by the way, is the most popular counter-argument to fine-tuning there is), hence my reply above. In any case, I haven't seen any objections any where to the degree of fine-tuning per se, but rather to our interpretation of it.

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:We don't know how many possible Univereses there are because there is only one to experience for us. We cannot know if other universes can support life for the same reason. This probability is a guestimation at best and a fairy tale at worst.

The multi-universe explanation is certainly a counter-argument to design and I already stated that it could very well be. The only thing is, it requires as much a leap of faith, if not more, as design does. Furthermore, it leaves us with the two nagging questions of who created the multi-universes and why. Back to square one.

That's not what I meant! =P
You're taking it out of context, your probability posits that there are many possible states the universe could have taken, but having seen no other state it can only be mere speculation.

Don't know what your point is. My posts refer to the degree of fine-tuning; your argument was that fine-tuning may not be at all since many different possibilities exist, one of which is the mutli-universe (which, by the way, is the most popular counter-argument to fine-tuning there is), hence my reply above. In any case, I haven't seen any objections any where to the degree of fine-tuning per se, but rather to our interpretation of it.

The fine tuning argument is that the values of the universe could have very well been something else. My question was how do you know the values could have been something else, without another example of a differently tuned universe to compare it to?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:We don't know how many possible Univereses there are because there is only one to experience for us. We cannot know if other universes can support life for the same reason. This probability is a guestimation at best and a fairy tale at worst.

The multi-universe explanation is certainly a counter-argument to design and I already stated that it could very well be. The only thing is, it requires as much a leap of faith, if not more, as design does. Furthermore, it leaves us with the two nagging questions of who created the multi-universes and why. Back to square one.

That's not what I meant! =P
You're taking it out of context, your probability posits that there are many possible states the universe could have taken, but having seen no other state it can only be mere speculation.

Don't know what your point is. My posts refer to the degree of fine-tuning; your argument was that fine-tuning may not be at all since many different possibilities exist, one of which is the multi-universe (which, by the way, is the most popular counter-argument to fine-tuning there is), hence my reply above. In any case, I haven't seen any objections any where to the degree of fine-tuning per se, but rather to our interpretation of it.

The fine tuning argument is that the values of the universe could have very well been something else. My question was how do you know the values could have been something else, without another example of a differently tuned universe to compare it to?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Are you now arguing FOR fine-tuning? Or are you saying no matter what the variables were, the outcome would have been the same (i.e. our present universe)? or are you saying we simply don't know?

Again, the degree of fine-tuning is not disputed any where, by any scientist (atheist or otherwise), at least none that I'm aware of. What is disputed is the interpretation. Proponents of fine-tuning say any other deviation, however small, and we would not be here. On the other hand, the counter-arguments are that we don't know what would have happened with any deviation (including the multi-verse option).

No, we do not know what would have happened and we cannot prove it either. But all indications are that the slightest deviation and we (as human beings) may not have existed at all (in our present form). Could it have resulted in an alternate universe where computers are the complex beings? Sure, maybe. Would these computers be debating God today? Highly unlikely, but then again, who knows? They could potentially question who made them.

You see, I am a simple man really. I don't like to complicate things more than is absolutely necessary, and that could very well be a limitation I impose unto myself due to my limited ability to comprehend complex matters (therefore, I break them down to their simplest forms). All of these debates/discussions/arguments we're having boil down to a simple idea, and that is one of choice. We can debate and present arguments and counter-arguments until eternity. In the end, it is our choice as individuals to believe that which defines us as complex human beings. You choose to believe we came to be by chance. To me, that idea is so far-fetched it is simply inconceivable. Neither one of us can prove their point right or the other's wrong with any degree of certainty. It's a matter of choice.

Byblos wrote:Here's a link to Dr. Ned Wright's site at UCLA. Dr. Wright is a PHD in astrophysics. Check out the paragraph titled Flatness-Oldness Problem in particular. Yet another example of the fine-tuning of the universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm#FO

Another site (from the University of Oregon) that better describes 4 topics related to fine-tuning:

. Horizon problem
. Flatness problem (again)
. Cosmological constant
. Matter/Anti-Matter asymetry

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/le ... ure-9.html

More fine-tuning data

http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/finetuning.html

To say "if this constant was only slightly different" as cosmologists do is not the fine-tuning argument. Afterall, if human beings had just one different number of arms (and the possibilties are endless: 3, 4, 5, 6... 10^37... 10^64... arms) then all those shirts we see in the clothes shops would not fit us. But that does not mean human beings' number of arms was fine-tuned to 2 in order to fit shirts (whether by staggering chance or intended design).

I'm familiar with some of the scientific academic literature on cosmological constants and philsophical academic literature for and against fine-tuning and am not really interested in a thread of links and counter-links. I am asking why certain posters in this thread personally feel there are a squillion conceivable universes but only one that can support life.

Byblos wrote:

You see, I am a simple man really. I don't like to complicate things more than is absolutely necessary, and that could very well be a limitation I impose unto myself due to my limited ability to comprehend complex matters (therefore, I break them down to their simplest forms). All of these debates/discussions/arguments we're having boil down to a simple idea, and that is one of choice. We can debate and present arguments and counter-arguments until eternity. In the end, it is our choice as individuals to believe that which defines us as complex human beings. You choose to believe we came to be by chance. To me, that idea is so far-fetched it is simply inconceivable. Neither one of us can prove their point right or the other's wrong with any degree of certainty. It's a matter of choice.

<cheering><aplluase>

Nice. "it is our choice as individuals to believe that which defines us as complex human beings" I agree.

Byblos wrote: You see, I am a simple man really. I don't like to complicate things more than is absolutely necessary, and that could very well be a limitation I impose unto myself due to my limited ability to comprehend complex matters (therefore, I break them down to their simplest forms). All of these debates/discussions/arguments we're having boil down to a simple idea, and that is one of choice. We can debate and present arguments and counter-arguments until eternity. In the end, it is our choice as individuals to believe that which defines us as complex human beings. You choose to believe we came to be by chance. To me, that idea is so far-fetched it is simply inconceivable. Neither one of us can prove their point right or the other's wrong with any degree of certainty. It's a matter of choice.

I will break it down for you.
You say the Universe was finely tuned. This implies other possibilities.
How do you know there are other possibilities?
And the Universe is tuned because this is the only one which can support life. This also implies you know all the other possibilities.
How do you know the other possibilties?

I never said we are here by chance. This thread was only an attempt to show what probability really means.

I think most people have a better understanding now.
As August said and I am paraphrasing, probability is a function of our limitation on knowing all the variables.

It is a reasonable way of determining outcome.

But as the many examples in this post attest to, the concept can be helpful but can also be abused.

Blob wrote: . . . . I am asking why certain posters in this thread personally feel there are a squillion conceivable universes but only one that can support life.

I agree completely, that makes no sense whatsoever. My problem with it is that in fact the squillion conceivable universes are actually possibilites to begin with. Yeah I agree with you from an evolutionary chance theory a significant number of the possibilities could sustain life. I guess I really don't belong in this thread, because I am not sure chance is anything but a mathmatical construct. So I guess that in itself is important to the study of chance. Within the framework of creation it wasn't a chance event at all, so all the other possibilities are merely a mental activity contrived from a a hypothetical investigation of evolution. More power to you! IF you discover anything let me know.

Thanks Jbuza. Obviously we disagree on the big questions and I appreciate you reaching out on points of agreement that do exist between us.

I would like to explicitly state, however, that I do not think "fine tuning is flawed therefore we're here by chance" - rather I think "fine tuning is flawed because it assumes and quantifies chance in an arbitary manner". In other words I don't consider our existance to be 'all by chance' at all.

Blob wrote:Thanks Jbuza. Obviously we disagree on the big questions and I appreciate you reaching out on points of agreement that do exist between us.

I would like to explicitly state, however, that I do not think "fine tuning is flawed therefore we're here by chance" - rather I think "fine tuning is flawed because it assumes and quantifies chance in an arbitary manner". In other words I don't consider our existance to be 'all by chance' at all.

Ok, you left that hanging and I have no choice but to beg the question. If not 'all by chance', how then?

And just to clarify my postion on fine-tuning, I personnaly did not claim that only one of these possibilities and no other lead to life. What I did say was that it lead to life 'in its present form'. Would a deviation have created beings with 3 heads and 7 arms? Maybe, I don't know. What I do know is that things most likely MAY have turned out much different; that is what science is telling me.