• 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!

Objective morality

camanintx

Well-Known Member
You would actually consider a function of natural law a device?
  • A thing made or adapted for a particular task, esp. a mechanism or electronic instrument
If you do, by this def you have proven a God exists. As you know this was not what I meant then let me clarify and add weapon on the end (since you are arbitrarily making this necessary by an appeal to diversion.) Regardless a mouse explains neither. So the point still stands. Next.
What is a device but a complex collection of natural laws acting together for a particular task. A typical nuclear device consists of electronic circuits initiating a chemical reaction that forces enough fissile material together to start a cascading nuclear chain reaction. What I've shown is how the same can be accomplished without intelligent design.

It is only necessary to know the rough probabilities of what could have happend.
And to know the rough probabilities you need at least some understanding of how the system works. Do you think you can explain how gravity works? Here is a paper explaining why the argument fails at probability.

Problems with the Argument from Fine Tuning

The MIT physicist says that the fine-tuning is real, and is best explained by positing the existence of an infinite number of universes that are not fine-tuned – the so-called multiverse
And another prominent physicist explains why the fine-tuning argument is wrong.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

Did you know that many of the so-called finely-tuned parameters only exist to define the units of measure?

No it isn't, it concerns the very first biological system that can be called alive. I didn't say what that was and so you had no idea what I was referring to.
I could see where you were going a mile away. Whether you call it life or a biological system, science does not say it arose through random processes. Molecules assembling into organic compounds is not random. Amino acids combining to produce proteins is not random. Here is an article that explains it far better than I can.

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance

That is not true. Energy is not shown to exist outside temporal natural law. In fact natural law can exist without energy existing. If energy always existed why hasn't it already reached what therodynamics makes inevitable. The equal distribution of it. IN fact the universe appears to have started in a wound up state as far as energy goes. What wound it up? It does not wind it's self up and can't. It irreversably unwinds.
Basic physics teaches us that energy can exist as either kinetic energy in motion or potential energy at rest. If time is simple how we measure motion then potential energy by definition exists outside temporal natural law. Since the thermodynamic heat death you allude to only relates to kinetic energy, a universe consisting solely of potential energy can exist indefinitely until it's equilibrium is disturbed.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What is a device but a complex collection of natural laws acting together for a particular task.
Sorry lost track of this. A device involves contruction of a complex design that requires intention. Cosmic accidents and anomalies are not devices. Why are ayou obsessed what what you know for a fact I was not referring to. Are you looking for a win based on a technicality because one based on substance is out of your reach?

A typical nuclear device consists of electronic circuits initiating a chemical reaction that forces enough fissile material together to start a cascading nuclear chain reaction. What I've shown is how the same can be accomplished without intelligent design.
That was not even the point, and not true besides. The universe and it's knife edge arrangement required intelligence to produce. Would you please get back on the path and debate the subject not what you diverted to. Higher than equilibrium complexity requires intelligence. When high complexity is found as an effect then the cause must be intelligent.

And to know the rough probabilities you need at least some understanding of how the system works. Do you think you can explain how gravity works? Here is a paper explaining why the argument fails at probability.
No one can explain why gravity works however how it works is easy.
F = Gm1m2/r2, That's how, no calculus, partial differentials, or discreet series, plain algebra. I have read and heard the counter arguments against fine tuning and I do not buy any of them. They don't really buy them either that is why they are forced into fantasy land of other universes to get out of this very inconvenient fact.



And another prominent physicist explains why the fine-tuning argument is wrong.

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf

Did you know that many of the so-called finely-tuned parameters only exist to define the units of measure?
Are we supposed to be having a scholar war. I can post sources to. There are eight papers here:
TrueU
PLUS:
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal "Scientific American", reflects on:
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:
One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning -- The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.
This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000, but instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states:
the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.
Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile:
The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same.
It is appropriate to complete this section on "fine tuning" with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler:
To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, "How could it have ever been otherwise?"
Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Fine Tuning of the Universe

I could see where you were going a mile away. Whether you call it life or a biological system, science does not say it arose through random processes. Molecules assembling into organic compounds is not random. Amino acids combining to produce proteins is not random. Here is an article that explains it far better than I can.

Calculating The Odds That Life Could Begin By Chance


Basic physics teaches us that energy can exist as either kinetic energy in motion or potential energy at rest. If time is simple how we measure motion then potential energy by definition exists outside temporal natural law. Since the thermodynamic heat death you allude to only relates to kinetic energy, a universe consisting solely of potential energy can exist indefinitely until it's equilibrium is disturbed.
And the war escelates: The guy at these sites has credentials that I would match against anyone. He specialised in biogenesis and has at least two Phds in fields directly relating to the field. So have at it. I suggest we call a truce to the scholar war and only debtae things we can actually discuss from our own understanding. Your choice. I can do this all week.

From Oxford Atheist to Leading Creationist
The Evolution Crisis: Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith
 
Top