You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from Ricter:
Let's move on. I suggest we agree there is a creator and take up the question, "is there evidence of a creator of the creator?"
within the context of the scientific arena that is a reasonable question.
of course since we nothing about what happened "before" our big bang... we do not have answer.
we see evidence of a Tuner in our universe...
and note to those who think gravity could have tuned our universe.
if you want to go with a Hawking quote on that... you have to have faith in inflation and you have to have faith in almost infinite universes.
I have quoted hawkings paper on the subject numerous times.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
Quote from Ricter:
Let's move on. I suggest we agree there is a creator and take up the question, "is there evidence of a creator of the creator?"
All the evidence needed is the same faith that there was a first creator. And also what if the creator isn't all knowing and our universe was his 101 trillionth try at making a universe. All it takes is faith and that it could be.
So at this time there is no evidence of the tuner of the tuner?Quote from jem:
within the context of the scientific arena that is a reasonable question.
of course since we nothing about what happened "before" our big bang... we do not have answer.
we see evidence of a Tuner in our universe...
and note to those who think gravity could have tuned our universe.
if you want to go with a Hawking quote on that... you have to have faith in inflation and you have to have faith in almost infinite universes.
I have quoted hawkings paper on the subject numerous times.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0602091
Quote from Ricter:
So at this time there is no evidence of the tuner of the tuner?
yes... solely evidence of a tuner to my knowledge...
see below...
http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
In Detail
"The more I examine the universe, and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming." â Freeman Dyson1
"A bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the Universe that is carefully fine-tuned â as if prescribed by an outside agency â or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, a mighty speculative notion to the generation of many different Universes, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see." â Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog2
Fine-Tuning and Pointers to God
Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of natureâs physical constants and the beginning state of the universe. Both of these features converge as potential pointers to a Creator. To explain the present state of the universe, scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature â like the strength of gravity â and the beginning state of the Universe â like its density â have extremely precise values. The slightest variation from their actual values results in an early universe that never becomes capable of hosting life. For this reason, the universe seems finely-tuned for life. This observation is referred to as the anthropic principle, a term whose definition has taken many variations over the years.3
Constants of Nature
The fine-tuning of the universe is seen most clearly in the values of the constants of nature. There are many such constants, the best known of which specify the strength of the four forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. If these forces took on even slightly different strengths, the consequences for life would be devastating.4 Two of these in particular, the strong and electromagnetic forces, are responsible for the unusually efficient production of carbon, the element upon which all known life is based. The forces cooperate in such a way as to create a coincidental match up of energy levels, which enables the production of carbon from the fusing of three helium atoms. For three helium atoms to collide and create carbon is very unlikely, however, because under normal circumstances, the energies would not match up perfectly, and the three helium atoms would come apart before they had time to fuse into carbon. It takes a little extra time to deal with the energy mismatch. But, if there is a statistically unusual match of the energies, then the process is much faster. The slightest change to either the strong or electromagnetic forces would alter the energy levels, resulting in greatly reduced production of carbon and an ultimately uninhabitable universe. In the 1950s, Cambridge University astronomer Fred Hoyle recognized the precision of the energy match up, called carbon resonance, and made the following observation:
... more at the link above...
Quote from jem:
yes... solely evidence of a tuner to my knowledge...
see below...
http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning
evidence?
"Who We Are
BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians ........"
nuff said.
would anyone be surprised that a leftist troll follows the usual leftist track of attempting to marginalize the blogger instead of addressing the quotes of the scientists and the message of the science?
what's next from you stu -- blaming fox news for the ziimerman result?
what's next from you stu -- blaming fox news for the ziimerman result?
Quote from stu:
evidence?
"Who We Are
BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians ........"
nuff said.