Response To Hugo

“You really think that the universe could not work if the laws of mathematics did not exist? You really think that because we can describe the world using mathematics it means that it was designed using mathematics?”

It was designed using what WE call mathematics.

I have to keep reminding myself that I’m talking to someone who doesn’t know the difference between Something and Nothing. Knowing that gives me the patience to answer you yet again.

Truth, and the Laws that govern the universe (Physics, Math and Logic) are discovered by us. They are never invented, conjured up or conceived. The “concepts” that we call Physics or Math or Logic are just words or a group of words that we use to describe what already IS. As I’ll describe below, without what already IS, nothing material would exist.

In like manner science can only describe what IS. Do you get that?
Science describes what IS.
Never Why and only sometimes How.
What IS.

Not what we imagine.
Not what we conceive
Not what we describe
but what IS.

And when it comes to the laws of physics, math and logic, what IS was in place at Planck Time - 10^ -43 second.
======

“Nothing we measure and compute using math is precise,”

You mean like, 2 + 2 = 3.9?

Maybe you need to give me your definition of precise. Here’s mine.

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist. Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values.

In fact, the natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 10,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000000.

Let’s conceptualized this number as represented by a dartboard. The distance from one side of the dartboard to the other side extends across our entire Milky Way Galaxy. With that in mind, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.

It’s important to remember that the values of these constants and qualities were not something that evolved, or something that “settled in” as the universe aged. These constants were “put in” at the 10^-43 second after the Singularity. As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, even arbitrary. They are almost totally independent of each other. However, they do share one thing in common. In fact the only thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them is needed to be exactly as is, in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet. While there are several dozen constants and qualities that are known, the most fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.

. What scientists, what ATHEIST scientists call an “astonishing coincidence” is the fact that at the Big Bang, the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism had to have been exactly as it was or else at 10 to -17 seconds after the start of the Singularity, the necessary binding of helium -4, beryllium -8 and carbon -12 would not have occurred and life as we know it would not have appeared.

Hugo says this is not very precise. I disagree.

. The exact number and types of neutrinos at 1 second after the beginning of the Big Bang had to be in place or the expansion rate would have prohibited the formation of our universe.

Think about that!

. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.

. If the strong force were a long-range force (like electromagnetism or gravity) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.

Pretty lucky for us, huh, that all this just happened by chance?

. If what we call the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.

. If what we call the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.

. The gravitational constant must be exactly 10 ^ 40 weaker than the strong nuclear force or again, no us. For those that are interested, that’s ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force - exactly!

Pretty lucky for us that it just happened to work out that way - prior to Planck time.

. A change of only 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Force would prevent life from existing.

I suppose you could get more precise but apparently that isn't necessary.

. If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life. Remember, these values had to be put in prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, 10^-43 seconds after the Singularity.

. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Any variation in either direction more than that and - no universe.

Now, I mentioned this galaxy wide dartboard comparison. This equation gives us a target within our galaxy wide dart board that is less than 2.5 centimetres in diameter. Listen up now because here comes what atheists call the really lucky part. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, one that we come upon, according to atheists, by accident is like blindfolding yourself, spinning around ten times and then randomly throwing the dart at our GALAXY wide dart board and hitting the target exactly in the centre of its 2.5 centimetre disk.

Sadly and amazingly, if you’ve made a philosophical commitment to atheism, this won’t be enough to convince you of anything Super Natural going on so let me use a different example.

. The entropy per baryon that had to be “put in” PRIOR to Planck time is 1 part in 10 followed by 1,230 zeros. If that hadn’t been put in at the Big Bang our life supporting universe would not exist. This requires an extraordinarily precise arrangement of mass and energy. To hit this exactly right by accident (as atheists tell us is the case), we would put on our blindfold, spin around ten times, and according to atheists, throw a dart randomly at a UNIVERSE sized dart board and hit the exact CORRECT PROTON.

Atheists will sometimes scoff at this by throwing out the term, “the magic of large numbers.” It’s a meaningless phrase regarding what’s being discussed here, but it makes them feel secure in their ignorance. Let me however describe the above equation in yet a different manner.

Scientists have described it this way. Imagine an aircraft carrier weighing 100,000 tonnes. If the weight of the ship was balanced to 10 ^ 1,230 it could not be off by more than billionth of a trillionth of the mass of an ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize.

Just how precise do things need to be for you Hugo?

Are you getting this?

Do you still think it accidental?

. One more example. It is estimated that the total number atomic particles in the entire universe is 10 ^ 80. Got that? Good. The odds of our universe, even according to atheist scientists, coming into being by chance or by accident is 10 ^ 1240.

Are you SURE you’re getting this?

10^50 is generally accepted, even by atheist scientists, as impossible.

If, by this point your mind isn’t numb with the credulity and gullibility that atheists force themselves to live with, I just don’t know what it would take to get you to throw up your hands and demand that atheists get out of the education business. I mean, just how blind does a person have to be before s/he stops demanding the right to drive the car?

This is not a joking matter any more. Atheist scientists have discovered this information. They know it, but obviously maintaining their bias against a Creator is worth throwing away their integrity. It’s embarrassing. It’s shameful. It should be a crime for them to teach “The Universe As An Accident” to your children.
Because these constants and qualities are independent of and unrelated to each other, as astronomical the odds of any one of them being just right, to find ALL of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension.

To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100, add to that the gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, add to that . . . and so on for ALL the constants and quantities.

No wonder atheist scientists say that we’re really, really lucky to be here.

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, We know that the fine tuning of the universe is due to one of the following:
. Physical necessity (it had to be this way and no other way),
. Chance (it’s just a really, really, really lucky accident), or
. It’s the design of an Intelligence beyond anything we have ever experienced.

We know it’s not due to physical necessity. In a secular or natural reality there is no reason whatsoever that ANY given universe has to exist, let alone a life supporting universe.

Nor is this fine tuning due to chance. As just shown, the required fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite (for Hugo I mean - so precise) that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen. As shown above, the odds against this happening by chance are insurmountable.

Even Richard Dawkins doesn’t believe this happened by chance. He thinks it will be discovered that the constants and quantities have to be exactly the way they are because of their relationship to Dark Matter. So, on the one hand he’s admitting that it’s absurd to think the fine tuning of our universe is accidental. On the other hand, he has no explanation why Dark Matter would have THAT property, why it would exist at all, or how it would come to begin to exist out of nothing by nothing.

Hugo, I said at the beginning that you doen’t seem to know the difference between something and nothing. I know from earlier conversations with you, that you think a vacuum is nothing. Now it appears that you also think a black hole is nothing. In fact you use the term "infinite density" to describe your version of nothing. Well, if mass is nothing then I suppose you're correct.

And when you can tell me where this mass existed (since space did not exist)
And when it existed (since time did not exist)
then I may come around to agreeing with you.

Until then, Hugo -
The Cosmological Constant
The Pauli-exclusion principle
The Quantization principle
The Gravitational constant
and on and on - these are words that describe what IS. They describe what was in place, precisely in place at Planck Time.

They don't describe what we’ve invented.

We live in a mathematically precise universe.

. It would be what we call mathematically precise even if we’d never discovered what IS

. It would adhere to what we call the laws of physics even if we’d never discovered what IS

. It would adhere to what we call the laws of logic even if we’d never discovered what IS

These non material laws, objective realities, were brought into the material world that existed AT Planck time along with space and time. They are what allow for the very existence of the material universe and they did not come from a material mind.