Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Theory of Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » The fine tune constants - close examination, one by one

The fine tune constants - close examination, one by one

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Do you know what the scientific theory on why the constants are this way is?

View user profile
elshamah888 wrote:as far as i know, there is no scientific theory tho explain it. If you know one, please presente it here.

So basically according to your understanding, which I agree with btw, we do not know scientifically how these constants could have been this way or why they are?

View user profile
elshamah888 wrote:yes, we don't know. What we know, is there is no physical need these constants to be the way they are.

There is no physical need? How do we know this?

Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one.

Do you mean that out of the 100-400 billion stars in our galaxy there are no other places that would allow us the same perks?

If so, how do you know this?

elshamah888 wrote:each of these values, distances etc. could be different, but they are not. They are set just right to permit life.

So did life form because it was suitable for life to form or was it suitable for life to form so life would form?

elshamah888 wrote:Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

this demands for a explanation. Chance is a very bad option in my view.

An explanation?... but you and I agreed that we have no theory or understanding on how these constants are the way they are. How can we explain something that we have absolutely no data on? Could Viking's explain lightning as being anything other than the product of Thor's hammer?

The probability of your parents choosing each other for reproduction is 1 in several billion.

The probability of the specific influenza virus cell that invades your body invading your body is less than 1 in 1 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

taking into account all it's parent cells that existed and the probabilities of them being chosen out of all their brother and sister cells that have infected each body before you tracing back to it's original evolutionary origin.

Probabilities don't make anything any more or any less reasonable, especially when we have no idea what their causes are.

To assume a cause when we have no data on what the cause is isn't reasonable either =/

I don't understand why it makes sense to you to do so...

I'm not saying that this means that god doesn't exist, I'm just saying that assuming that because something isn't explained it means that god was involved. Isn't really reasonable or convincing...

View user profile
elshamah888 wrote:
Yrost wrote:

Do you mean that out of the 100-400 billion stars in our galaxy there are no other places that would allow us the same perks?

If so, how do you know this?

i know it based on scientific evidence :

EXOTIC LIFE SITES: THE FEASIBILITY OF FAR-OUT HABITATS

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/life-on-other-planets-a-real-possibility-t232.htm

Oh I see... interesting read, but the data has changed now, as it always does with science, they've already found planets similar to our own and many many more candidates.



http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

In his best- selling book A Brief History of Time, Hawking writes:

"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example 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." [A Brief History of Time, p. 125] A minor difference in the electron's charge and stars wouldn't burn. There would be no burning sun at the centre of our solar system to provide life-supporting heat and light. Also there would be no supernova explosions to produce the raw materials for the formation of planets like our earth." [Ferguson, p. 94]

So both is true. The universe is fine tuned to life. And life is fine tuned to our universe.

That's a weird thing to say. An effect can't be a part of the cause. That's like saying, I am modeled after my father and my father is modeled after me. It's a paradox, no?


we don't need a theory. just figure out the two alternatives : god, or nothing = chance.
what makes it reasonable to you, to invoke chance as a good explanation, in front of the presented odds ?

I... didn't invoke chance. Why do you think I did that? I said that science has no data on the subject. We both agreed on that, but then you said that god did it. You base this on the fact that we have no data on how it happened. I think it's reasonable to invoke ignorance when you have no data on something, isn't it reasonable to say "I don't know"?


the difference is, you have at the beginning of the chain a first couple, apt to reproduce. Its reproduction mechanism is in place at the beginning of the process. How about the universe ?

So we have the knowledge and data on what the causes and effects of these processes are, so even if they are improbable it doesn't matter right, because they're explained?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Question

Your argument is based on intuition.

If you and others around you believed that human beings make arrow heads or hatchet heads, finding articles that resembled them would lead you to believe that humans did make them and you would not be criticised even if you were wrong and they were a product of sedimentation.

If you and others around you believed that extra terrestrials made machinery, finding articles that resembled them on the moon would lead you to believe that extra terrestrials did make them and you would not be criticised even if you were wrong and they were actually a product of clandestine government operations there.

If you and others around you believed that god made life, finding articles that resembled this life would lead you to believe that god did make them and you would not be criticised even if you were wrong and they were actually a product abiogenesis and evolution.

If you and others around you believed that the sun orbitted the earth, seeing the sun float in the sky would lead you to believe that the sun did orbit the earth and you would not be criticised even if you were wrong and the earth was actually revolving into view of it.

Intuition works perfectly well when you're right, but not when you're wrong. Saying this is a little tautological, but I think it's necessary.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum