The Fine Tuning of the Universe

[nitro]

There are many as yet unexplained instances in the Universe that we stand in awe of the precision necessary for the viability of life. For example, If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. There are scores of fine tunings like this that make even this number look likely. The current answer by the scientific community is extremely undesirable (imo), otherwise known as the "Anthropic Theory"

The Universe, the more places we look, seems to be created from the very fabric up to support "life". How this relates to a creator is very different from most religious thinking:

1) There is nothing that says the Universe wasn't created. Only that this creator has nothing to do with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buhdism, etc etc etc. But if it was created by a creator, it was created using mathematical laws (or something like it that we have not yet imagined) and not "faith", "love", "hope", pick your religious affiliation here.

2) That we may not understand "life" since we have only examples of it on one world. It is totally possible that there are forms of life that are possible in extremely different Universes from ours, or even within our universe. Hence no fine tuning and no creator needed as explanatory.

The second is what I am most likely to believe. I actually think the first one is also possible, but very unlikely. Multiple Universes are far more likely in my mind than a creator. I actually think the multi-universe is some sort of crystal or soap bubble, with Universes continuously in cyclic time borrowing energy from each other in the crystal through gravity to spawn other Universes in the Multiverse. The energy stored in the Multiverse is truly colossal, where spawning a Universe in the multiverse takes as much energy as a single wave does in relation to the entire ocean. This Multiverse is fantastically older than our own Universe (whose size is unimaginable), on the order of hundreds of trillions of years old, and possibly much much older than this. We may never know.

This doesn't answer what started it all either. But nothing does.

the funny thing is the non believers are trying to take us off on tangents. ...
the point of the video and basically the point for those who understand how finely tuned the standard model of physics is...

is that scientists... studying the universe now realize that if there is only one universe there is almost had to be a Creator.

that is the point... we have evidence of a Creator...or alternatively you can take up faith in in unseen untested almost infinite other universes or some future explanation that explains why the universe had to be this way.. (which may still point to a Creator by the way).

So the table is now flipped by science --- we have evidence of a Creator... or to deny that takes faith. (in unseen almost infinite universes.)

Just understand what that video is saying at about 1 minute 20 seconds in talking about the gravitational constant....

That is not a lie... that is massively important and it is the state of science right now. The fine tuning was pretty much incredibly confirmed when they found the higgs boson and CERN.

 

[loyek590]

There are many as yet unexplained instances in the Universe that we stand in awe of the precision necessary for the viability of life. For example, If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. There are scores of fine tunings like this that make even this number look likely. The current answer by the scientific community is extremely undesirable (imo), otherwise known as the "Anthropic Theory"

The Universe, the more places we look, seems to be created from the very fabric up to support "life". How this relates to a creator is very different from most religious thinking:

1) There is nothing that says the Universe wasn't created. Only that this creator has nothing to do with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buhdism, etc etc etc. But if it was created by a creator, it was created using mathematical laws and not "faith", "love", "hope", pick your religious affiliation here.

2) That we may not understand "life" since we have only examples of it on one world. It is totally possible that there are forms of life that are possible in extremely different Universes from ours. Hence no fine tuning and no creator needed as explanatory.

The second is what I am most likely to believe. I actually think the first one is also possible, but very unlikely. Multiple Universes are far more likely in my mind than a creator. I actually think the multi-universe is some sort of crystal or soap bubble, with Universes continuously in cyclic time borrowing energy from each other in the crystal through gravity to spawn other Universes in the Multiverse. This Multiverse is fantastically older than our own Universe, on the order of hundreds of trillions of years old.

This doesn't answer what started it all either. But nothing does.

preach it brother, I'm a trader, and I've seen math do a lot of funny things.

you got some monkeys with typewriters and I have eternal time, I will lay you odds on the monkeys

 

[loyek590]

preach it brother, I'm a trader, and I've seen math do a lot of funny things.

you got some monkeys with typewriters and I have eternal time, I will lay you odds on the monkeys

if you believe we evolved from monkeys (or chimps or whatever you want to call them) like every thinking person now does, (and they have some very good, almost irrefutable evidence ostriches evolved from dinosaurs. That one makes you think. Especially if you bought in to the "mass extinction" conspiracy) I figure, we invented Shakespear and typewriters and we came from them, so they can probably do it given enough time. And that is why it is important for me to have a lot of time, like eternal. Some like to control information, I like to control time.

 

[loyek590]

so God is just an old man sitting at the roulette table with an unlimited amount of money and an unlimited amount of time, and no limit. And what's worse, sometimes he bets red, sometimes he bets black, and sometimes He bets one number. You never can figure out that guy.

but we are traders, so we try

 

[loyek590]

so God is just an old man sitting at the roulette table with an unlimited amount of money and an unlimited amount of time, and no limit. And what's worse, sometimes he bets red, sometimes he bets black, and sometimes He bets one number. You never can figure out that guy.

but we are traders, so we try

and that's how religion gets passed on

 

[loyek590]

and that's how History gets passed on

 

[loyek590]

like I tell my kids, "Trust me and your government, but don't ever trust History."

 

[jem]

1. no one is saying the fine tuning is pointing to a God of a specific religion.

Why are the non believers always bringing up the brands of religions a a counter. (that is an entirely different argument)

No one here is saying the fine tunings are evidence of a particular type of Creator.

2. Your 2nd point is very speculative...

so my point is that there is evidence of a Creator in Universe... and that evidence is (ironically) countered by speculation and faith in a multiverse or perhaps other forms of life.

There are many as yet unexplained instances in the Universe that we stand in awe of the precision necessary for the viability of life. For example, If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size. There are scores of fine tunings like this that make even this number look likely. The current answer by the scientific community is extremely undesirable (imo), otherwise known as the "Anthropic Theory"

The Universe, the more places we look, seems to be created from the very fabric up to support "life". How this relates to a creator is very different from most religious thinking:

1) There is nothing that says the Universe wasn't created. Only that this creator has nothing to do with Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buhdism, etc etc etc. But if it was created by a creator, it was created using mathematical laws (or something like it that we have not yet imagined) and not "faith", "love", "hope", pick your religious affiliation here.

2) That we may not understand "life" since we have only examples of it on one world. It is totally possible that there are forms of life that are possible in extremely different Universes from ours, or even within our universe. Hence no fine tuning and no creator needed as explanatory.

The second is what I am most likely to believe. I actually think the first one is also possible, but very unlikely. Multiple Universes are far more likely in my mind than a creator. I actually think the multi-universe is some sort of crystal or soap bubble, with Universes continuously in cyclic time borrowing energy from each other in the crystal through gravity to spawn other Universes in the Multiverse. The energy stored in the Multiverse is truly colossal, where spawning a Universe in the multiverse takes as much energy as a single wave does in relation to the entire ocean. This Multiverse is fantastically older than our own Universe (whose size is unimaginable), on the order of hundreds of trillions of years old, and possibly much much older than this. We may never know.

This doesn't answer what started it all either. But nothing does.

 

[traderob]

So science proves that the existence of thos universe is almost mathematically impossible. And their answer to that is " oh it's nothing to get excited about, there must be multiverses.."
They dont have a clue. The whole evolution religion worldview is a crock

 

[piezoe]

so for those of us that are truth seekers, the climate change debate and the god debate seem very similar. The debate isn't really about the science, the debate is about the implications.

You've obviously been smoking weed, so give us a break.