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]

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

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