Proof of God in fine tuning
Examples of Fine Tuning in the Universe:
1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5.ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6.ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7.ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9.entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10.mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11.velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12.age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13.initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14.average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15.density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16.average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17.fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18.decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19.12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20.ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21.decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22.ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23.initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24.polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25.supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26.white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27.ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28.number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29.number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30.mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31.big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32.size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33.uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
Is atheism than rational?
So you can see the three premises of this argument. 1)The Universe looks exactly like a God designed it. 2)It does not appear at all like a generation of chance. So it follows that 3)God exists.
It is hard to believe that these equations came about by chance. In fact, one atheist on you tube analyzed the probabilities of this Universe coming up by chance to be zero.
It takes more faith to be an atheist (faith as in trust not the religious connotation of course)
Also take into account that this Universe needs to be this large to permit life. We are also in an awesome place to learn and to discover in the universe. Its almost if someone put us here with one of the purposes of finding things out. Take a look at our atmosphere. It has the right amount of qualities to allow for us to gaze at the stars. The moon is in the right place so as to generate how the earth spins. This also generates our orbit around the sun, which in turn, keeps us safe. The moon also affects the tide. My question to you, how can you be an atheist?
Impossiblity of DNA emerging without Design
I would like to share with you some of HARUN YAHYA work where he explains that without God, there could be no DNA.
A very interesting paradox emerges at this point: While DNA can only replicate with the help of special proteins (enzymes), the synthesis of these proteins can only be realized by the information encoded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. Science writer John Horgan explains the dilemma in this way:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalyticproteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.268
This situation once again undermines the scenario that life could have come about by accident. Homer Jacobson, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, comments:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...269
The quotation above was written two years after the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. But despite all the developments in science, this problem for evolutionists remains unsolved. This is why German biochemist Douglas R. Hofstadter says:
'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.270
DNA
Information is needed, even for the most basic creatures. The oldest fossils of bacteria even have shown to have run off of information (DNA or RNA) DNA stores the code of information that makes you. The information is much like a book, in that there are 4 letters (A,G,C, and T) that when formed instruct the cell to build sequences of amino acids, which are the building blocks of protein. Different arrangements of these four letters results in different sequences of amino acids. A protein is a long linear group of amino acids. The forces between the amino acids, make the proteins fold into very particular three-dimensional shapes which are highly irregular, kind of like the key of a key. Uniformitarianism, leads us to conclude that information can only be produced by intelligence. Nature can produce patterns not information. One human cell is as complex as a whole city, it has been estimated. Therefore with this and other arguments, concluding that nature cannot make itself let alone information, that belief in God is the most rational stand point.
The Fine-Tuning Argument
[url=http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/tuning-revisited.html]The Fine-Tuning Argument Revisited[/url] by Theodore M. Drange.
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html]Intelligent Design[/url] at TalkOrigins.
Fine tuning is also a creationist claim over [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html]here[/url] and [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI302.html]here[/url].
Enjoy.
Just to make an obvious
Just to make an obvious argument: While everything you state would be necessary for human life, or at least our type of life, chances are some other form of complex molecules would form in some other way no matter which of those constants were changed. Even if hydrogen would not be possible if the nuclear force were different (for example) something else would be.
If we were anything else, you would be marveling at how fortunate we were the universe was ordered in such a way we could become that.
Welcome, Master_Debater!
Welcome, Master_Debater!
You're assuming that the
You're assuming that the universal constants...have different potential values. Or perhaps they are all related to one constant in some way, and there are many universes, ALL suitable for life, as adjusting one would change them all, and perhaps make different forms of life, but life nonetheless. You cannot speculate about something about which there is no knowledge in order to make a point.
Secondly, some of your points are...well, retrospective. For example, the moon keeps our orbit in place? What about before the moon was there?(dating on the moon has shown us that the hypothesis that it broke off from the earth at some point is true)
The moon affects the tide? So the tide would be...different without the moon? You're RIGHT! The tide COULD be different! but it's not! and we can see the stars! which is absolutely crucial to life! without that the universe could not exist! The point being that all of these are trivial and retrospective.
I can jsut as easily imagine another universe where you'd be saying 'no celestial bodies affect our tide, thankfully, and it's a good thing the atmosphere is opaque enough that we have darkness at night(in which case we would have evolved better night-vision, and the whole thing would be unimportant).
The reason things look designed is our evolution to fit our environment. This is why retrospective reasoning is fallacious.
Many Universes? This
Many Universes? This hypothesis is not really based in science though so I don't know why you would argue based on this theory. Your assuming too that the more universes that are created, the more closer we would get to having life. But does one randomly shot out universe's chances of having life rise just because there are so many universes randomly shooting out? Is not this a gamblers fallacy? Also, what do you speculate creates all these supposed universes of yours? Would not this need a universe generator that could cause all the right amounts of chemicals to come together and mold them? Your argument sounds more religious than scientific.
Life is not as easy as just
Life is not as easy as just adding water. Just because we would look at how fine tuned the universe is, does not take away from the fine tuning of our own universe to support life.
timbobwaay wrote:Life is not
[quote=timbobwaay]Life is not as easy as just adding water. [/quote]
Miller-Urey experiment.
The universe is actually a
The universe is actually a giant blackhole generator, life is just a bi-product of the necessary elements to create blackholes.
That experiment produced
That experiment produced only a couple of amino acids but only in 1. Utilizing an enviroment that did not resemble the earth. 2.Seperating chemicals so as to not create a sludege that would destroy the amino acids.
That was far from adding water though. That was only for a few amino acids as well, if anything that experiment proved that you need intelligent design.
Where did you get that from?
Where did you get that from?
Quote:Where did you get that
[quote]Where did you get that from?[/quote]
Miller-Urey? From Shopmore Bio class.
However, the experiment
However, the experiment showed that it is possible for life to arise from non-life.
Fine tuning?
Obviously the universe appears fine tuned to permit life--if it didn't, there would be no life, and we wouldn't be here to think about it. How "fine" is "fine-tuned" anyway? "Fine" is a human, subjective measurement. If the universe is "fine-tuned" to permit life...why is life apparently so rare in it? How do you know that there are no other combinations of the universe's physical constants that permit life? We don't really know how different life could be; the best we can do is assume that all life is similar to us. Saying that God solves the problem is just plain ridiculous. In the words of geneticist Jerry Coyne, "If the history of science has shown us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance 'God'". Just look at lightning--people used to think it was the work of Thor, or Zeus, but now we know the real answer; it is the result of particles shifting around in the clouds. Look at the Bible's explanation for rainbows; the Bible says that rainbows are a sign of God's covenant with the earth. But we know now that rainbows are caused by the refractive properties of water. Science gives real answers that have explanatory power. Attributing something to God is just another way of saying "I don't know".
In fact, according to
In fact, according to evolution, rather than the world being fine-tuned to permit human life, humans are well adapted to the world we live in. Douglas Adams summed it up in a witty quote: "A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: "This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn't it?... It must have been made to have me in it." This is also the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The fallacy goes like this: "If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true." This reasoning is fallacious because B can be true for other reasons besides A--just because B is true, doesn't mean that A is true. The argument must then proceed to explain why A can be the only parsimonious cause for B. An example of this fallacy is "If the Koran is true, then Mecca is a real city. Mecca is a real city. Therefore, the Koran is true." In your case, the fallacy becomes, "If God made the universe, it would be fine tuned to permit human life. The universe appears fine tuned to permit human life. Therefore, God made the universe". Any "explanation" for a scientific truth in the universe that attributes it to God really explains nothing, because God is unreachable, unknowable, unfalsifiable, and impossible to investigate. All these arguments really say is that God somehow supernaturally does something which affects the natural world, but these "explanations" explain nothing about how God does anything. Basically, when someone says "God did it", they really mean "I don't know, so I'm going to assume a supernatural entity did it". In other words, all scientific arguments for God, including the "fine tuning" arguments and "creationism" arguments explain nothing--they are all just excuses for theists to attribute more stuff to God, converting him into a three-letter word meaning "I don't know".
Welcome to the board,
Welcome to the board, Eeshking!
Heh. Thank you.
Heh. Thank you.