Fine tuned universe

[Kizzi]

Dr Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe (& others) would have me believe the universe is fine tuned by a creator, otherwise humans wouldn't exist.

 

Does anyone have anything to say about this (Is Dr Ross mistaken?)?

 

Kizzi

[infamous]

Dr Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe (& others) would have me believe the universe is fine tuned by a creator, otherwise humans wouldn't exist.

 

Does anyone have anything to say about this (Is Dr Ross mistaken?)?

 

Kizzi

I for one, believe that it is finely tuned by a creator, however, don't ask me to prove it for I can't. There are those that would question my logic because I choose to believe in something that has no scientific evidence to support it's existence. I might remind them that life is full of many things that we invest our faith in. Not everything we experience in life can be explained by the scientific method. Example: We all use the word love, but, can anyone truly and accurately define it??

[Harzburgite]

Weak Anthropic Principle.

[infamous]

Weak Anthropic Principle.

It may be weak, but nevertheless, it still exists.

[Jay-qu]

there are only 2 answers to that 'Dont Know' and 'maybe, maybe not' no-one can pretend to know the answers to questions such as that... not just yet!

[Aki]

I don't believe in a fine tune creator. If there were one, why doesn't he show up at our doors? why has no one seen him?

[Tormod]

I answered "no" but like Jay-qu points out the only technically (and let's face it, scientifically) correct answer is "don't know". I think the poll would actually be better without the "don't know" option because it is sort of meaningless with it. :)

[EWright]

I don't believe in a fine tune creator. If there were one, why doesn't he show up at our doors? why has no one seen him?

 

Why should he? Because science demands evidence? Because WE demand it? It's funny that scientists will accept the liklihood of 7 extra spacial dimensions demanded by string theory, but which no one has seen... yet they can not believe a superior being capable of creating these dimensions or who perhaps exists within them.

 

Likewise, science searches for a Grand Unified Theory in physics, which will allow them to 'understand' all things. But even if they could eventually use such a knowledge to create about anything, they still wouldn't believe that a higher being had done so in the past, and thus created this universe. It is my understanding that scientists hope to create micro black holes in the lab in the not so distant future, but still they can not believe a being came before us who could create so much more.

 

Consider the length of time our planet has existed in the grand scheme of the universe. And consider how rapidly our knowledge and technology and abilities have evolved in recent times. And yet given so much more time, (many/most) scienctists refuse to conceive that another being could have 'evolved' as perhaps a universe itself (Himself) to the point that he became virutally all knowlegable and all powerful to the extent that he is God.

[Mr. Potato Head]

Why should he? Because science demands evidence? Because WE demand it? It's funny that scientists will accept the liklihood of 7 extra spacial dimensions demanded by string theory, but which no one has seen... yet they can not believe a superior being capable of creating these dimensions or who perhaps exists within them.

 

Likewise, science searches for a Grand Unified Theory in physics, which will allow them to 'understand' all things. But even if they could eventually use such a knowledge to create about anything, they still wouldn't believe that a higher being had done so in the past, and thus created this universe. It is my understanding that scientists hope to create micro black holes in the lab in the not so distant future, but still they can not believe a being came before us who could create so much more.

 

Consider the length of time our planet has existed in the grand scheme of the universe. And consider how rapidly our knowledge and technology and abilities have evolved in recent times. And yet given so much more time, (many/most) scienctists refuse to conceive that another being could have 'evolved' as perhaps a universe itself (Himself) to the point that he became virutally all knowlegable and all powerful to the extent that he is God.

 

 

If God is just an evolved organism, even if from a different planet, I don't think He would be worth worshipping. Evolution does not apply to God. I think it applies to what He created though.

 

I will believe in God until we are able to spot creatures milling around on a rock other than Earth and are able to communicate with them and see what they think. I think I will probably believe in God until I die. I'm not saying there isn't life out there, because I really hope there is, but I'll be surprised if we find it in the next 100 years.

[infamous]

Why should he? Because science demands evidence? Because WE demand it? It's funny that scientists will accept the liklihood of 7 extra spacial dimensions demanded by string theory, but which no one has seen... yet they can not believe a superior being capable of creating these dimensions or who perhaps exists within them.

It is truly amazing what some will accept when their theories are in question. And likewise what they won't accept as possible when it demands they turn from their selfcentered point of view.

 

 

 

Consider the length of time our planet has existed in the grand scheme of the universe. And consider how rapidly our knowledge and technology and abilities have evolved in recent times. And yet given so much more time, (many/most) scienctists refuse to conceive that another being could have 'evolved' as perhaps a universe itself (Himself) to the point that he became virutally all knowlegable and all powerful to the extent that he is God.

Until those in positions of scientific authority lose the concept of their own superiority and concede to the notion that, it might be possible that a higher knowledge exits in our universe, not even the slightest possibility exists that such a notion will gain significant support.

[pgrmdave]

If the physics of the universe were different, if the conditions on earth weren't just so, then there would be no human life. However, this doesn't prove anything. Imagine a 1,000,000,000,000 sided die. Any given side has only a .00000000001% chance of being rolled. However, there is a 100% chance that a side is rolled. When we roll it the first time, and number 3,584,900,833 is rolled, we look at it and say - "Look, there was only a .00000000001% chance of it being rolled, it couldn't have done that randomly, because it's statistically impossible. There must be a guiding intelligence." However, we fail to realize that SOMETHING had to happen, and it was lucky that it was us, and not something else.

[EWright]

If the physics of the universe were different, if the conditions on earth weren't just so, then there would be no human life. However, this doesn't prove anything. Imagine a 1,000,000,000,000 sided die. Any given side has only a .00000000001% chance of being rolled. However, there is a 100% chance that a side is rolled. When we roll it the first time, and number 3,584,900,833 is rolled, we look at it and say - "Look, there was only a .00000000001% chance of it being rolled, it couldn't have done that randomly, because it's statistically impossible. There must be a guiding intelligence." However, we fail to realize that SOMETHING had to happen, and it was lucky that it was us, and not something else.

 

Still, there seem to be a multitude of independant things necessary for this universe and our existance; each with their own .00000000001% of happening.

[emessay]

Fine tuned universe by creator ??

 

1. Automatic tuned universe created by designer, we've got pattern only, we 'must' trace it back for universe future.

2. For example from 1 zygote to be 30 trillion cells, what's really the pattern, the typical mechanism likes negative films to be printed thousand times. Can we reach to understand there is something like 'negative film for future'. I believe trillions meter length of DNA are only 'manufacturing plant' which execute based on well-designed pattern automatically and probablistic allowed. The products are now we've defined as 'conscious universe'.

3. Are 'we' typical mechanism of matter and energy only ? or are we 'above all of matter and energy' ? Are there physical creator, physical desginer, or do we think there is physical constructor for universe, so we need to discover personification something like 'Project Director for Universe Construction Projects'......................... :lol:

4. For me , I believe 'I am' not typical matter and energy mechanism, I would back to Him, mortal for a future. What a Belief !!!!

5. For you...................

[Eclogite]

It is clear that the Universe has numerous characteristics that are essential for life to exist.

It is equally clear that were any of these characteristics only slightly different, then life would be impossible - and not just life as we know it.

What is not clear, at least to me, is why this is so. It might be pure chance - if the numbers had been different we wouldn't be around to discuss them. Or, it may be the work of a 'creator'. No real evidence for, no real evidence against. So I voted for the fence sitting position. It's uncomfortable, but it seems objective.

[infamous]

Let's preform a mental experiment. If life is only the result of an accident, then the universe we call home must also be an accident. This stands to reason because life is so dependant upon the physical nature of our universe. Surmizing that the physical nature of our universe is unique enough for life to have begun here, we can assume that the probability for this occurance is quite low. This begs the question; is this universe the only one in a very long and varied line of former universes. Probability suggests that only one universe would not be a sufficient number to achieve the conditions condusive to life. Accepting the possibility that many universes have existed prior to this one, the question comes to mind; How long did it really take for the changing universe to get it right, that is for life to emerge? I would assume, a very long time. Long enough for a universal intelligence to evolve to the point we might refer to it as God?? Think about it.

[Eclogite]

I think your argument, while interesting, is flawed in two ways:

1) While the odds against the conditions amenable to life appear high, perhaps very high, they are not zero. While it is unlikley that 23 will turn up twice in succession on a roulette wheel, it will do so from time to time. Doubtless there are individuals who have sat down at the table placed their bets and benefited from just such a chance. They talk about. Those who lose don't. There is no reason that the Universe should not have 'got it right' the first time around. It is just as likely as it happening the last time around.

2) I am not at all clear how an intelligence can evolve in a Universe that is not amenable to life. The intelligence would evolve from life. There are those who feel that the present Universe is evolving towards creating such an overriding intelligence, or god if you will. We, and our consciousness, would be part of that evolution. I don't rule that out, but life is an integral part of the process. How do you propose such an intelligence would evolve in the absence of life?

[infamous]

How do you propose such an intelligence would evolve in the absence of life?

The universe itself could possess a conciousness without the neccessity for life as we understand it to exist. Remember this one thing, complexity could be the precursor to conciousness and I'm sure we all agree that the universe is the source of all complexity.

 

Along with these few thoughts I'd like to make it clear, this is just as I afore mentioned a mental experiment. I would not want anyone to take my comments as dogma.