Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

“It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. The seemingly miraculous concurrence of these numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.”
Physicist Paul Davies
Posted by at

20 comments:

  1. HugoMarch 8, 2011 at 8:29 AM

    "God may have created an infinite number of universes with only one being a life supporting universe or all of them being life supporting universes."

    - Thesauros

    ReplyDelete
  2. ThesaurosMarch 8, 2011 at 10:05 AM

    Yes, and?

    ReplyDelete
  3. HugoMarch 8, 2011 at 10:52 AM

    You don't see the contradiction yourself?

    What a startling surprise!

    ReplyDelete
  4. ThesaurosMarch 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM

    So - please show me where I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HugoMarch 8, 2011 at 12:50 PM

    I'll trust your intentions and assume that this a genuine question...

    There are two underlying ideas that are conflicting here:

    1) The universe we live in, and try to understand using mathematical models, is unique, and could not have had any other physical constants describing it.

    2) The universe we live in, and try to understand using mathematical models, is not unique, and could have had any other physical constants describing it. It is but one of an infinite number of possible universes.

    From the quote you posted we can infer 1), and you seem to agree with it, otherwise you would not post it, and you did mention that before anyway...

    At the same time, your own quote can be used to infer 2), and indicate that you are open to the idea that Creator God might have created an infinite number of universes, ours being just one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ThesaurosMarch 9, 2011 at 6:01 AM

    I think that what Davies is saying, and I agree, is that the fine tuning of the universe (a life supporting universe which is so improbable that it also supports a designer theory) is so precise that it points toward a designer. The Creator that I worship could have done that once, a billion times or ?

    ReplyDelete
  7. HugoMarch 9, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    I think that what Davies is saying, and I agree, is that the fine tuning of the universe (a life supporting universe which is so improbable that it also supports a designer theory) is so precise that it points toward a designer. The Creator that I worship could have done that once, a billion times or ?



    You have a strange way to approach conflicting statements; I don't know if you do it on purpose or even realize it in the first place... Let me try to simplify.



    The argument supported by the quote, using the words in the quote as much as possible, is this:

    P1 - The universe has a structure that we can characterize using mathematics

    P2 - This structure is defined using very precise numerical values

    P3 - Any alterations, even minor, to the numerical values would not allow this universe to exist the way it is.

    C - Therefore, the universe was thought out; it was designed by a mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. HugoMarch 9, 2011 at 7:18 PM

    Now, let's see how what you just said fit with the argument.



    First, no matter how many times Creator God did anything is irrelevant. The question here is to look at the argument and see if the conclusion flows from the premises. The fact that Creator God can rebuild the universe as often as He wants does not support, or invalid, the conclusion. We can thus dismiss that part of your comment for now.



    Second, the universe we live in is not, at all, a life supporting universe. It's our planet that is life supporting. As far as we know, there is no reason to claim that life exists only here, and that Creator God could not seed life on other planets in the same universe. This point is thus irrelevant as it does not support, or invalid, the conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. HugoMarch 9, 2011 at 7:18 PM

    So, we arrive at your comment being exactly like the argument of fine-tuning. You claim that "the fine tuning of the universe [...] is so precise that it points toward a designer".



    But, as you agreed previously, our universe is potentially one of an infinite number of universes, each with their own set of numerical values describing their own structure. We have no reason to prove that this is impossible.



    Therefore, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The argument is invalid.



    Finally, just to be clear, the fact that Creator God can create all of these universes does not change anything. It's the argument alone that falls apart, and it does not, in any way, an argument for the non-existence of a designer. It just fails at being an argument for the necessity of a designer using the presented premises.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ThesaurosMarch 10, 2011 at 8:29 AM

    C. “Therefore, the universe was thought out; it was designed by a mind.”

    No, he doesn’t say that. He says, [the fine tuning of the universe] “must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.”
    ========

    “Second, the universe we live in is not, at all, a life supporting universe. It's our planet that is life supporting.”

    And our planet exists in this universe. For all you or I know, it takes a universe exactly like this to support life on one tiny planet. Whether there is life on one planet or a trillion planets, this is a life supporting universe. Or perhaps, just as atheists can’t seem to understand the gap between something and nothing, you don’t get the difference between life and non life. I mean, just how many planets are required to have life before it becomes a life supporting universe.
    ============

    “You claim that "the fine tuning of the universe [...] is so precise that it points toward a designer".”

    Correct!
    =====

    “each with their own set of numerical values describing their own structure.”

    Or values exactly as our own. It doesn't matter. What we know about life tells us that if there are observers examining the universe it which they live, that universe will be so precisely tuned as to make it highly improbable that it came about by accident.
    =======

    “We have no reason to prove that this is impossible.”

    We have no reason to think that there are ANY other universes. The only reason to speculate that another (previous universe) exists is to argue that God wasn’t required for this universe to exist. Which is of course supposed to get us off the topic of from where and how (since matter can't be eternl) did matter / energy come from for the "first" universe?
    =====

    From here to the end I must tell both you and Charlie Sheen that cocaine only makes it seem TO YOU like you're really intelligent. I’m just going to have to accept that you’re either stoned when you write this stuff or you really are so far beyond me intellectually that I can’t follow your train of thought.

    Probably the latter. God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  11. HugoMarch 10, 2011 at 8:37 PM

    It's a long comment so there would be a lot to comment on, but I want to get more info on what you mean by...

    What we know about life tells us that if there are observers examining the universe it which they live, that universe will be so precisely tuned as to make it highly improbable that it came about by accident.

    ..because that is, in my opinion, the most honest description of what you believe concerning the universe as a whole; it sums up everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  12. World of FactsMarch 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

    By the way, the end of the comment was pretty funny. I would have said 'neither' to:

    "either stoned when you write this stuff or you really are so far beyond me intellectually that I can’t follow your train of thought"

    Thx for saying the latter ;) but I doubt...

    ReplyDelete
  13. World of FactsMarch 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

    Let's break it down:
    "What we know about life tells us that..."
    It tells us... facts about life. That's it.

    It does not inform us of how the universe came to be, or how non-life became life, you need to study chemistry for that, and we are still not sure anyway.

    Life that we can study is 100% on Earth. So there is nothing we can infer from that concerning other kinds of life, if they exist. Actually, we cannot even say if other types of life exist as of now.

    "...if there are observers examining the universe it which they live"
    why 'if', we are there. This changes the nature of what you are saying but you don't seem to realize it. I repeat, there is no 'if'!

    "...that universe will be so precisely tuned..."
    No! That is where your logic fails.

    Read your statement again. You show that for you, the mere fact that we exist is evidence that the universe is 'precisely' tuned... for us!

    ReplyDelete
  14. World of FactsMarch 10, 2011 at 8:39 PM

    You could, seriously, sum it up as: We exist, we look at the universe, we are the only one we know that exist in that universe, therefore the universe is fine tuned for us.

    Finally, continuing with
    "...as to make it highly improbable that it came about by accident."
    thus means absolutely nothing, as you now simply dismiss a silly idea that I don't support, and you do not support your own idea that the universe is fined tuned.

    In other words, you create this false dichotomy of 'tuned' VS 'accident' and you decided to support 'tuned' because 'accident' seems, to you, improbable. You have no support, at all, for your 'tuned' idea.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ThesaurosMarch 11, 2011 at 6:40 PM

    "false dichotomy of 'tuned' VS 'accident'"

    Well, if you think that the fine tuning of our universe, that took place at Planck Time is neither the result of a Designer nor an accident, give me a third likely candidate.
    =====

    "You have no support, at all, for your 'tuned' idea."

    No support (evidence)? You're not that stupid Hugo. Right? Please tell me I'm right that you're not so stupid or ignorant to not know what scientists mean when they talk about fine tuning.

    You can look here if you need a refresher: http://thesauros-store.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-im-not-atheist.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. HugoMarch 13, 2011 at 12:40 PM

    "Well, if you think that the fine tuning of our universe, that took place..."

    No matter what you write after this, I don't care. I don't see evidence of fine tuning, that's the whole point. I just explained why above.

    When scientists talk about fine tuning, they don't conclude that it's nothing else than 'cosmic design'... so again, I don't care. I don't see evidence that points to "fine tuning" being a proof of cosmic design.

    So no, I am not that stupid, and I don't think you are; you just don't focus on the appropriate words, and miss the point completely.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ThesaurosMarch 13, 2011 at 9:04 PM

    Well, now you've said two different things:

    "I don't see evidence of fine tuning"

    "I don't see evidence that points to "fine tuning" being a proof of cosmic design."

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I think you’re saying is that you agree with scientists that the universe is exquisitely finely tuned (how could you not agree - right?) AND you agree with scientists who, like you, are committed to a material universe, that since this fine tuning has to be accidental (Snerk!) we’re just really, really, really lucky.

    Ya?

    Am I right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. HugoMarch 14, 2011 at 4:43 PM

    Yes I'll correct you because you are wrong; completely wrong.

    - The two things I said mean the same thing. It's the usage of "finely tuned" which is different and misleading. It's my mistake to have assumed that you would see the difference. I will thus say the same thing: I just explained above.

    - What does "committed to a material universe" means to you? How can you say it applies to me? I believe our universe includes immaterial things, so your statement appears completely meaningless to me. Since when do you pretend to be able to read minds anyway?

    - No I don't think "we're just really, really, really lucky" that the universe exists. Again, I don't even know what you mean exactly. If it were different, we would not be here to discuss it, so how can this be luck?

    What I do feel lucky about are very different things, like the fact that I was born in a great country like ours, or that I had loving and caring parents, or that I was born without any defect; I also feel lucky that I was given (by God?) the ability to learn how the universe works, the ability to think critically, and the ability to use reason and logic in order to be a responsible adult: a person capable of seeing when he does good or bad things, a person who can judge both himself and others according to the consequences of their own actions and choices.

    ReplyDelete
  19. World of FactsApril 23, 2011 at 10:34 PM

    I am not comfortable answering the question "Why do you believe in God?" because you haven't defined "God". In any case, as a scientist,
    I prefer not to deal in "belief" but rather in the usefulness of concepts. I am sure I don't believe in any sort of god with which most readers of your article would identify.

    (NOTE: article can be found here)

    I do, however, assume (along with all scientists) that there is a rational and intelligible scheme of things that we uncover through scientific investigation. I am uncomfortable even being linked with "a god" because of the vast baggage that this term implies (a being with a mind, able to act on matter within time, making decisions, etc).

    - Paul Davies, quantum physicist

    ****

    I knew this name of Paul Davies sounded familiar...

    Happy Easter again!

    ReplyDelete
  20. ThesaurosApril 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM

    So when you put the two comments together, Hugo, what does it mean to you?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)