Do you believe in God?

Page 85 of 88 [ 1403 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 Next

Do you believe God exists?

1) God is a being, that one can have a personal relationship. A person God.	29%	[ 55 ]
2) God is an impersonal force that guides reality as it is. He decrees our laws of physics, but does not intervene to break them.	12%	[ 22 ]
3) God does not exist. Reality can be explained by scientific inquiry and the scientific method in by itself.	33%	[ 62 ]
4) I am not sure. There is the possibility that God does exist, or does not. We must follow the preponderance of evidence when drawing our conclusion.	26%	[ 48 ]

Total votes : 187

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 7:15 am

Well I got a partial list of life permitting parameters for our universe:

- Electromagnetic force (Brandon Carter); can't differ by 1 in 10^40.
- Expansion rate of Big Bang initiality (Paul Davies); can't differ by 1 in 10^100.
- Cosmological Constant 'problem,' can't differ by 1 part in 10^120. (Weinberg)
- Gravitational Constant; can't differ by 1 part in 10^60.
- Initial entropy; (@AspE a number I got from Roger Penrose's ass, like you asked before) can't differ by 1 part in 10 in 10 to the power of 123. There are more zeros in that number then all of the subatomic particles in the universes combined.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

17 Jun 2016, 7:35 am

Deltaville wrote:

For all these numbers: why not?
Most usiversal constants can vary quite far (a percent, or thereabouts) and still allow life as we know it.

But even then, the fine-tuning argument is moot, as the universe only appears to be fine-tuned for us, as we developed inside of it; a different set of constants would have made differentforms of life, which would then state that the universe was fine-tuned for *them*.
Alternatively, no life would exist in the universe, and noone would wonder why.

Fine-tuning is irrelevant, and even if it wasnt, it still would not be evidence for a god

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 8:06 am

izzeme wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

If you have not read my description, this is the maximum deviation possible in order to enable life to exist

If the EMF/SNF differed by a very tiny amount no atoms could form and obviously no life. In regards to the CC 'problem,' if it differed by 1 part in 10^120, no galaxies could form and only once in a trillion years a hydrogen atom may collide in the observable universe. Note: I am a physicist and a proud theist.

Many opponents of intelligent design claim that fine tuning is argument from ignorance or god of the gaps. It doesn't take very long to realize that the truly ignorant are those ID critics when commonsense hits you that you cannot derive any form of life from a single hydrogen atom colliding once in a trillion years.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 8:21 am

If the multiverse ever gets completely refuted, the fine tuning argument would be for me, the smoking gun proof of God's existence.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Jun 2016, 8:29 am

Deltaville wrote:

If the multiverse ever gets completely refuted, the fine tuning argument would be for me, the smoking gun proof of God's existence.

Why? It's still the least likely explanation for an unlikely set of numbers.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 8:32 am

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

If the multiverse ever gets completely refuted, the fine tuning argument would be for me, the smoking gun proof of God's existence.

Why? It's still the least likely explanation for an unlikely set of numbers.

"If you see fine tuning in our universe, you probably need a fine tuner. If you don't want God, you better have a multiverse." - Bernard Carr

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Jun 2016, 8:59 am

"If you need a God in the universe, you better see fine-tuning."

Me

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 9:16 am

AspE wrote:

"If you need a God in the universe, you better see fine-tuning."

Me

And there is fine tuning. Do you really ascribe a 1 in 10 to the 10 to 123rd probability to be fully ascribed by chance? The mathematical equivalent of winning the lottery every second since the universe existed? A number with more zeros then all of the protons, neutrons etc in the whole universe combined to mere luck?

If you think this is 'luck,' you are no better then an ostrich hiding its head in the sandpit.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Jun 2016, 9:27 am

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

"If you need a God in the universe, you better see fine-tuning."

Me

Yes, chance. The chance is 100%. It occurred 1 out of 1 times, as far as we know.

What we don't know, is that it could have been different. Moving theoretical numbers around isn't the same as it actually happening in reality.

If you think it could have been different, then you are acknowledging the possibility of a multiplicity of universes with different arbitrary parameters.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 9:33 am

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

"If you need a God in the universe, you better see fine-tuning."

Me

Yes, chance. The chance is 100%. It occurred 1 out of 1 times, as far as we know.

Facepalm. This is perhaps the most blatant disregard of probability theory ever. Bayesian probability supports the fact that some supernatural interference governs our universe, or at least makes that hypothesis plausible.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 9:37 am

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

"If you need a God in the universe, you better see fine-tuning."

Me

The numbers are quite correct, you simply take the Hawking-Berkenstein black hole equations, change into our general FLRW metric equivalent, and Voila!

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Jun 2016, 9:39 am

Deltaville wrote:

...The numbers are quite correct, you simply take the Hawking-Berkenstein black hole equations, change into our general FLRW metric equivalent, and Voila!

You can't calculate odds of something if it only happened once. You also can't calculate the odds of something if the possibilities are infinite.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 9:44 am

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

...The numbers are quite correct, you simply take the Hawking-Berkenstein black hole equations, change into our general FLRW metric equivalent, and Voila!

You can't calculate odds of something if it only happened once. You also can't calculate the odds of something if the possibilities are infinite.

It is clear that you have never ever studied any math, physics, cosmology, or statistics.

When we have only one data point can we calculate probabilities?

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 9:48 am

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

...The numbers are quite correct, you simply take the Hawking-Berkenstein black hole equations, change into our general FLRW metric equivalent, and Voila!

You can't calculate odds of something if it only happened once. You also can't calculate the odds of something if the possibilities are infinite.

I am staring at the derived formula right now, and I can tell you this, you are hopelessly and utterly incorrect.

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

17 Jun 2016, 10:08 am

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

...The numbers are quite correct, you simply take the Hawking-Berkenstein black hole equations, change into our general FLRW metric equivalent, and Voila!

You can't calculate odds of something if it only happened once. You also can't calculate the odds of something if the possibilities are infinite.

It is clear that you have never ever studied any math, physics, cosmology, or statistics.

When we have only one data point can we calculate probabilities?

Only in relation to the specific variable and theoretical notions of what is possible. But the formation of a universe is the overall phenomenon, not the variable, which does not occur in isolation.

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

17 Jun 2016, 10:14 am

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

AspE wrote:

Deltaville wrote:

...The numbers are quite correct, you simply take the Hawking-Berkenstein black hole equations, change into our general FLRW metric equivalent, and Voila!

You can't calculate odds of something if it only happened once. You also can't calculate the odds of something if the possibilities are infinite.

It is clear that you have never ever studied any math, physics, cosmology, or statistics.

When we have only one data point can we calculate probabilities?

Only in relation to the specific variable and theoretical notions of what is possible. But the formation of a universe is the overall phenomenon, not the variable, which does not occur in isolation.

Pathetic nonsense. We cosmologists do not rely on prior probabilities! How do you think we do statistics with only a single universe to sample with?

_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck

Page 85 of 88 [ 1403 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 Next

Jump to:

Do you believe in God? Post Reply New Topic

Do you believe in God?