Why do atheist's fear God?

stu you troll...

a. How many times do I have to show you the articles which explain the standard model of physics is very finely tuned... and it was used to predict and find the higgs...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-the-higgs-nobel-be-the-end-of-particle-physics/


The Standard Model is regarded as a highly “unnatural” theory. Aside from having a large number of different particles and forces, many of which seem surplus to requirement, it is also very precariously balanced. If you change any of the 20+ numbers that have to be put into the theory even a little, you rapidly find yourself living in a universe without atoms. This spooky fine-tuning worries many physicists, leaving the universe looking as though it has been set up in just the right way for life to exist."



http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/creatorfacts/

In his best-selling book, “A Brief History of Time”, Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world’s most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as “remarkable.”

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of “a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)” (ibid. p. 125). Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of “Genesis and the Big Bang” and “The Science of Life” was formerly with the M.I.T. physics department. He adds the following examples:

1) 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.



b, you speak of the the Theory of Everything... and we have discussed this before. Science has been looking for that for years. There was hope string theory would turn into the TOE.

you may have faith they we will someday find the TOE. And, when it is found it may still point to a Tuner because the question will be why did it have to be that way.

The fact is you're talking utter nonsense. No fine tuning has been confirmed at CERN or anywhere else.

To dispel fine tuning, the universe need only be constrained by its fundamental properties causing it to form in the way it has. Same for life itself.

Incomplete information offers only an appearance of fine tuning, but there is a wish for fine tuning from some religious people like yourself, who will say anything while grasping for their personal Tuner.
 
a. Oh please again?Really?.
Give it a rest with the same old cut and paste bullshit rhetoric. Just like the day you first posted that crap years ago, there isn't one jot of science in there that demonstrates, proves or confirms constants ARE fine tuned. Posting it a thousand times won't change the fact.

Whether a number was 1 or 100 or a billion decimal places, you'd be saying any value is fine tuned, especially when the scientific explanation for the value is unknown and incomplete. It's just God of the Gaps nonsense.

b. I haven't mentioned anything about ToE. Presumably you have already been drinking well before starting to post.
 
And Hawkings is an atheist: "Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist."


That mind of God reference was in his book, "A Brief History of Time."


Even if there was a God, how would anyone know if they're worshipping the right God?
 
Stu.. the info has not changed... so why would the material I link to. its all the same... its science... however... here is a different article saying the same things... you might wish to read what Andre Linde says in the articles... but here is something confirming what I have been saying.

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory
Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.

...

“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”


http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator





a. Oh please again?Really?.
Give it a rest with the same old cut and paste bullshit rhetoric. Just like the day you first posted that crap years ago, there isn't one jot of science in there that demonstrates, proves or confirms constants ARE fine tuned. Posting it a thousand times won't change the fact.

Whether a number was 1 or 100 or a billion decimal places, you'd be saying any value is fine tuned, especially when the scientific explanation for the value is unknown and incomplete. It's just God of the Gaps nonsense.

b. I haven't mentioned anything about ToE. Presumably you have already been drinking well before starting to post.
 
non falsifiable... what about scientists at CERN using the very finely tuned standard model of physics to find a higgs boson is non falsifiable.
I am flabbergasted at your blockage.

but maybe not...

I understand lots of smart people don't want to examine ideas which conflict with their weltanschauung. for some reason it hurts many people educated in 1950s random chance thinking to realize our universe appears very finely tuned.

Here is one of the smartest guys in the world in math and science telling you of the extreme fine tuning. I have linked to the math he used here in the past.

I had no idea that the existence of the Higgs Field wasn't falsifiable. I guess you are right and Popper is all wrong. Who new!:D
 
its science

it isn't...that's the thing:rolleyes:

you might wish to read what Andre Linde says in the articles...
He's being descriptive.That's all.
It's quite obvious to anyone not trying to insert religion into everything they see.

In a scientific context, Multiverse or God. That's Multiverse, or no scientific explanation.

But a simple... not A, therefore B must be true... is no more than a logical fallacy.
So he's characterizing his scientific position in strong support of Multiverse only.

These days anyone can easily find various scientifically possible variations and alternatives to Multiverse for the origin of the universe. Origins in which neither God or Mother Goose are required to create.

Constantly misunderstanding what is and isn't science in attempt to give credibility to your personal religious beliefs, does not make your argument sensible or intelligent.
 
Last edited:
nice try.. but you miss a key point... the multiverse is unseen and untested... it is a faith based explanation for the fine tuning of the constants of our universe.


the multiverse in which every condition (tuning) happens is virtually the same quality of answer as saying an ominpotent Creator who set the conditions (tuning of the constants).

and if you were honest you would see its weaker explanation... although both are possible.

it isn't...that's the thing:rolleyes:


He's being descriptive.That's all.
It's quite obvious to anyone not trying to insert religion into everything they see.

In a scientific context, Multiverse or God. That's Multiverse, or no scientific explanation.

But a simple... not A, therefore B must be true... is no more than a logical fallacy.
So he's characterizing his scientific position in strong support of Multiverse only.

These days anyone can easily find various scientifically possible variations and alternatives to Multiverse for the origin of the universe. Origins in which neither God or Mother Goose are required to create.

Constantly misunderstanding what is and isn't science in attempt to give credibility to your personal religious beliefs, does not make your argument sensible or intelligent.
 
Last edited:
whatever that means it does not follow from our previous exchange I asked you what about it was non falsifiable. ... I see you recognized you erred in your flipant characterizations of the information I presented.

I had no idea that the existence of the Higgs Field wasn't falsifiable. I guess you are right and Popper is all wrong. Who new!:D
 
Last edited:
you miss a key point... the multiverse is unseen and untested...

It's you whose missing the point. To the point of ridiculous.

Lots of theoretical physics, science and math, suggests Multiverse. It is a scientific proposition.

No physics, no science, no math, suggests anything like a magical Tuner called God or whatever. It is not a scientific proposition. (Do you really need that explaining to you:confused:)

The two are entirely different.

And there is no science anywhere that confirms any constants ARE fine tuned.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top