How do the non-spiritual explain it?

CultureLab Why the universe wasn t fine-tuned for life

In The Fallacy of Fine-tuning, Victor Stenger dismantles arguments that the laws of physics in our universe were ""fine-tuned" to foster life

IF THE force of gravity were a few per cent weaker, it would not squeeze and heat the centre of the sun enough to ignite the nuclear reactions that generate the sunlight necessary for life on Earth. But if it were a few per cent stronger, the temperature of the solar core would have been boosted so much the sun would have burned out in less than a billion years - not enough time for the evolution of complex life like us.

In recent years many such examples of how the laws of physics have been "fine-tuned" for us to be here have been reported. Some religious people claim these "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of a grand design by a Supreme Being. In The Fallacy of Fine-tuning, physicist Victor Stenger makes a devastating demolition of such arguments.

A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant. Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.



In addition to general mistakes, Stenger deals with specifics. For instance, British astronomer Fred Hoyle discovered that vital heavy elements can be built inside stars only because a carbon-12 nucleus can be made from the fusion of three helium nuclei. For the reaction to proceed, carbon-12 must have an energy level equal to the combined energy of the three helium nuclei, at the typical temperature inside a red giant. This has been touted as an example of fine-tuning. But, as Stenger points out, in 1989, astrophysicist Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life.
 
There has never been a beginning and there will never be an end. Why can't you believe that but you can an invible all powerful god? How is that even credible? Maybe 100 years ago but we're at a stage in history where god is just not believable. And does it matter if we believe? If yes fu and if no then cool we just disagree.
 
CultureLab Why the universe wasn t fine-tuned for life

In The Fallacy of Fine-tuning, Victor Stenger dismantles arguments that the laws of physics in our universe were ""fine-tuned" to foster life

IF THE force of gravity were a few per cent weaker, it would not squeeze and heat the centre of the sun enough to ignite the nuclear reactions that generate the sunlight necessary for life on Earth. But if it were a few per cent stronger, the temperature of the solar core would have been boosted so much the sun would have burned out in less than a billion years - not enough time for the evolution of complex life like us.

In recent years many such examples of how the laws of physics have been "fine-tuned" for us to be here have been reported. Some religious people claim these "cosmic coincidences" are evidence of a grand design by a Supreme Being. In The Fallacy of Fine-tuning, physicist Victor Stenger makes a devastating demolition of such arguments.

A general mistake made in search of fine-tuning, he points out, is to vary just one physical parameter while keeping all the others constant. Yet a "theory of everything" - which alas we do not yet have - is bound to reveal intimate links between physical parameters. A change in one may be compensated by a change in another, says Stenger.



In addition to general mistakes, Stenger deals with specifics. For instance, British astronomer Fred Hoyle discovered that vital heavy elements can be built inside stars only because a carbon-12 nucleus can be made from the fusion of three helium nuclei. For the reaction to proceed, carbon-12 must have an energy level equal to the combined energy of the three helium nuclei, at the typical temperature inside a red giant. This has been touted as an example of fine-tuning. But, as Stenger points out, in 1989, astrophysicist Mario Livio showed that the carbon-12 energy level could actually have been significantly different and still resulted in a universe with the heavy elements needed for life.

So theists are making both general and specific mistakes?

I read this the other day and told boss this guy who's an expert says he's wrong but he's probably on some creation science site getting spin.
 
Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.

Oooo... ETERNAL.... Now there is a word seculars don't often use!

I wonder if Silly Boob will enlighten us with HIS definition of eternal?
Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.

Ah, now we have "infinite" being introduced. Do tell more!

Also... What is your primary scientific basis for this argument? I'm just curious.
 
There has never been a beginning and there will never be an end. Why can't you believe that but you can an invible all powerful god?

I didn't say I didn't believe it, I just find it odd that you believe this. Infinity and Eternity sound like very spiritual concepts. I am very interested in the science you've supported this idea with, if you would be so kind as to share?
 
We do understand them, that's the thing. [...]
Yeah? We understand precisely the origin of the universe and the beginning of life?

You must have a few Nobels lined up on your mantelpiece. Perhaps you could let the rest of of us in on the info.
 
Last edited:
Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.

Oooo... ETERNAL.... Now there is a word seculars don't often use!

I wonder if Silly Boob will enlighten us with HIS definition of eternal?
Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.

Ah, now we have "infinite" being introduced. Do tell more!

Also... What is your primary scientific basis for this argument? I'm just curious.
Its an alternate hypothesis to your god hypothesis.

Are you saying you are 100% sure god exists?
 
There has never been a beginning and there will never be an end. Why can't you believe that but you can an invible all powerful god?

I didn't say I didn't believe it, I just find it odd that you believe this. Infinity and Eternity sound like very spiritual concepts. I am very interested in the science you've supported this idea with, if you would be so kind as to share?
Watch the old and new cosmos but not on TV. Rent it you cheap sob. Or rent it from the library. I promise with your mind you will love it. Get a pen and notepad and take notes. But they are long so watch an episode or two at a time. I watched them while really contemplating this shit. It didn't happen over night but watching the new cosmos is when I went full blown atheist. Then I watched the old cosmos.

It is just a superstitious primitive ancient belief you can't let go of.

And if you still believe after watching the cosmos then you just arent ready. You may never be. I have lots of friends who don't even want to hear it! Ignorance is bliss.

I think you are convertable. Lol
 
Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.

Oooo... ETERNAL.... Now there is a word seculars don't often use!

I wonder if Silly Boob will enlighten us with HIS definition of eternal?
Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.

Ah, now we have "infinite" being introduced. Do tell more!

Also... What is your primary scientific basis for this argument? I'm just curious.

And its not like youre a christian trying to save or convince us because you want to convert us or don't want us to go to hell.

And you think an awful lot about it. I think you're trying to convince yourself. I remember being like you. Its not your fault. Lol

But serious you seem ready to wake up. Its awesome after you finally accept it and let go your imaginary friend cause he ain't there.
 
Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.

Alan Guth - How Vast is the Cosmos?:


Even he doesn't get what infinite means. His ten to the quadrillion means there is an end. I say there is no end. How can there be? And there is no beginning. Maybe a beginning and end of our universe but that isnt the end of the cosmos. It may be just black space but its still here. Here will always be here even if the earth is gone.
 
Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.

Alan Guth - How Vast is the Cosmos?:


Even he doesn't get what infinite means. His ten to the quadrillion means there is an end. I say there is no end. How can there be? And there is no beginning. Maybe a beginning and end of our universe but that isnt the end of the cosmos. It may be just black space but its still here. Here will always be here even if the earth is gone.


Alan Guth does state that the theory predicts the pocket universes are infinite, but this is still an inflation theory of the big bang. Science cannot precede the big bang model, therefore he cannot claim that the universe is eternal.
 
Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.

Oooo... ETERNAL.... Now there is a word seculars don't often use!

I wonder if Silly Boob will enlighten us with HIS definition of eternal?
Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.

Ah, now we have "infinite" being introduced. Do tell more!

Also... What is your primary scientific basis for this argument? I'm just curious.
I'm interested in those same questions relative to your particular, peculiar invention of gawds vs. all the other inventions of gawds.
 
I'd still like to know if the universe is so finely tuned (presumably by Someone/Something) why is pretty much everything in the universe set up to wipe out life?

Do you remember the old tube-type televisions with the rabbit ear antennas? Well... there was a modern marvel... a finely tuned instrument which could pick up wave signals we can't see, feel, hear or anything... magic! Now... If you were curious as a kid like I was, you may have tinkered around with an old TV. Stick your screwdriver in the wrong place, and they'd be having your funeral that weekend. Fine tuned instrument of wonder... but it could kill you dead.

There is no correlation between "fine tuned" and "potential for catastrophe" that I am aware of. Some of the most finely tuned things we've created have had catastrophes. Fine tuned does not mean orderly and pristine. Yep, the universe can certainly kill us many different ways, but it has allowed life to evolve to the point of questioning these things, questioning existence itself. I don't think that is a fluke.
That would suggest your gawds are really incompetent "designers"
 
There has never been a beginning and there will never be an end. Why can't you believe that but you can an invible all powerful god?

I didn't say I didn't believe it, I just find it odd that you believe this. Infinity and Eternity sound like very spiritual concepts. I am very interested in the science you've supported this idea with, if you would be so kind as to share?
Watch the old and new cosmos but not on TV. Rent it you cheap sob. Or rent it from the library. I promise with your mind you will love it. Get a pen and notepad and take notes. But they are long so watch an episode or two at a time. I watched them while really contemplating this shit. It didn't happen over night but watching the new cosmos is when I went full blown atheist. Then I watched the old cosmos.

It is just a superstitious primitive ancient belief you can't let go of.

And if you still believe after watching the cosmos then you just arent ready. You may never be. I have lots of friends who don't even want to hear it! Ignorance is bliss.

I think you are convertable. Lol

See now, this is where we're totally different, silly boob. I don't rely on a television program to tell me what to think. I specifically asked you for the science to back up your claim of an infinite and eternal universe. You presented a TV show.

It's kind of creepy how you're telling me to become a brainwashed zombie. How long do I have to watch Cosmos before I abandon my God and become atheist? A month? Six months? What if I don't want to become a full blown atheist like you, but just enough atheist to scare little kids?
 
Even he doesn't get what infinite means. His ten to the quadrillion means there is an end. I say there is no end. How can there be?

Oh let's see... Math and physics would be one reason. We've calculated the approximate age (and size) of the universe. Infinite and eternal are the same as immortal and everlasting. How can you rationalize no possibility for an eternal/infinite controlling force but yet that is your definition of the actual universe? Seems like finely tuned cosmological constants working for all of eternity is not any different than God.

It's okay Boob.. lots of people consider the universe God.
 
Actually the universe is eternal. No god necessary or require.

Oooo... ETERNAL.... Now there is a word seculars don't often use!

I wonder if Silly Boob will enlighten us with HIS definition of eternal?
Its all that is all that was and all that will ever be. But not just our universe. Beyond our cosmic horizon is an infinite cosmos.

Ah, now we have "infinite" being introduced. Do tell more!

Also... What is your primary scientific basis for this argument? I'm just curious.
Its an alternate hypothesis to your god hypothesis.

Are you saying you are 100% sure god exists?

No, an infinite and eternal universe cannot be a scientific hypothesis. You're presenting a philosophical concept that science cannot measure. This doesn't mean it isn't true, you may be absolutely correct, but it's not based on science.

Yes, personally I am 100% sure God exists. If not, I couldn't believe in God. However, my basis is not scientific because you can't observe it.
 
No, an infinite and eternal universe cannot be a scientific hypothesis. You're presenting a philosophical concept that science cannot measure.
Universe Measured With Near-Perfect Accuracy Scientists Say It s Probably Infinite Flat And Eternal - International Science Times

"We've done the analysis now because we have 90 percent of [the experiment's] final data, and we're tremendously excited by the results," says Martin White, chair of the survey team and physicist at the University of California, Berkeley. They announced the findings Thursday and have submitted their paper for publication with the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The team has good reason to be excited: no one has ever mapped the universe so accurately. As team leader David Schlegel put it, "I now know the size of the universe better than I know the size of my house."

They did it using a high-powered telescope at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, which, for almost five years, has been hunting deep space for galaxies. Some of them are more than 6 billion light-years away and, therefore, at least as many years old (FYI, a light-year is a distance, equal to about 5.9 trillion miles). They say it may be the largest collection of redshift galaxies (galaxies moving away from us) ever compiled. By comparison, the new Hubble photo of deep space, said to capture the farthest reaches yet, only shows galaxies 3.5 billion light-years from earth.

With that information, the physicists looked for clusters of galaxies called Baryon acoustic oscillations, or baryons, which arrange themselves in circles around a central cluster. They're basically caused by pressure ripples from when the universe was formed about 13.4 billion years ago, which cooled and froze. In this case, they proved useful because the radius of each cluster is always the same. In effect, they are a 500-million-light-years-long measuring tape.

The scientists translated the data into a 3-D map of the universe. What they discovered is that the universe is "flat" — not in the two-dimensional sense, but in the physicist jargon sense. That is, its shape adheres to principles of basic fourth-grade geometry: A triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees, and that kind of thing. Here's the cool part about that: "One of the reasons we care is that a flat universe has implications for whether the universe is infinite," Schlegel says in the news release. "That means — while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end — it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."
 

Forum List

Back
Top