Shaken Atheism: A Look at the Fine-Tuned Universe

[+Hammerclaw]

If a God created the universe--and the word in Hebrew translated as God is Elohim which is plural, meaning the Bible actually says the Gods created the heavens and the earth--he/they created a fully natural universe governed by its own laws requiring no divine tinkering. Why would divine beings bother tinkering with monkeys on our tiny spinning fragment of solar driftwood, anyways?

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

21 hours ago, joc said:

You cannot use the quote of Bernard Lovell...

I did.

Quote

because...you cannot use the argument for a Big Bang in your Biblical Fantasy Story.  If you are going to believe in the Myth Creation Story...then by god...believe it! Embrace it! But you do not get to use Scientific Theories for a backdrop of your idiotic arguments against science.

I have many arguments against 'science false so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles. 

[cormac mac airt]

8 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I know they are not off. That is definitely not my argument. We have at work in the universe fundamental constants of physics and chemistry, exact numerical values that are in operation at any given moment. And as I said before, if any of these values were slightly off, it would cause huge disruptions in the world and the rest of the universe. It's not just one constant but multiple, perfectly fine-tuned to allow for life. This is astonishing! Intelligence at work. 

From OP article - "change various particle masses and charges, and the stars would burn too quickly or too slowly, or atoms and molecules, including water, carbon and oxygen, would not form or would not remain stable.

It is not that we cannot imagine another world in which intelligence or life might exist. It is rather that, in this world, any of a hundred small shifts this way or that would render everything blank. Astrophysicists John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk calculate that "small changes in the electric charge of the electron would block any kind of chemistry" ("The Structure of the Early Universe," Scientific American, April 1980: see also John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle). A fractional difference, and there would have been nothing. It would be so easy to miss, and there are no hits in the revised universes we can imagine: and yet this universe is a delicate, intricate hit."

There would be no disruptions because there would be no existence. NONE! Nothing in that requires an intelligence. 
 

cormac

[+Hammerclaw]

On 9/16/2023 at 3:28 PM, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

 

How can a huge explosion create something so specific? It would take the power of a superintellect to control and bring about the right conditions. 

How do you know? Did your Prophetess whisper that in your ear from the grave? 

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

10 hours ago, joc said:

11 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Out of chaos does not come order. Not without the aide and intervention of intelligence. Order does not come about by itself, that is impossible. Simply out of the question. Everything orderly came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Take all the parts of a car or a cell phone and drop them before you. It doesn't matter how many years go by. They will never assemble into a car or a cell phone. All the laws of nature and physics came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Also, not by some horribly creepy looking insect humanoid thing or a weak immoral mind. But by a good and great, powerful and majestic Being.    

Your paragraph begs the question...and so I ask it...

Lol

Quote

how does a powerful majestic intelligent mind come into being? 

It doesn't. 

[+Hammerclaw]

When scientific rationalism enters a theological argument, the first casualty of the discussion is the very foundation of a religion i.e., Faith.

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

10 hours ago, Sherapy said:

11 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Out of chaos does not come order. Not without the aide and intervention of intelligence. Order does not come about by itself, that is impossible. Simply out of the question. Everything orderly came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Take all the parts of a car or a cell phone and drop them before you. It doesn't matter how many years go by. They will never assemble into a car or a cell phone. All the laws of nature and physics came about by the power of an intelligent mind. Also, not by some horribly creepy looking insect humanoid thing or a weak immoral mind. But by a good and great, powerful and majestic Being.    

Read, many natural phenomena exhibit self-organization without any external intelligent intervention. For example, in physical systems like crystallization and flocking behavior in birds, patterns and order emerge spontaneously through simple interactions between the entities involved.
 

Those things you mentioned are the results of either preprogrammed instructions in the DNA, and/or pre-existing chemical and physical laws. Which my point is that, there is intelligence behind them (the laws, etc). 

Quote

The theory of evolution proposes that complex life forms have evolved through gradual changes over millions of years, driven by natural selection. No intelligence is required for this process.

No. Even there, you will find coded instructions in the DNA. Natural selection is limited to what is already in the DNA. It cannot select for something that is not there. You can breed a bunch of dogs to get different kinds of dogs. But no matter how long you try, you'll never get a cat. We have no observational evidence of a jump from one kind to the next, like a cat to a rat or something else. 

The whole millions of years thing is also unsubstantiated. Carbon dating has some loopholes. Can we observe the C14 half-life? And determining the original C14 content is debatable. 

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/carbon-dating-accuracy-major-flaw

Wiki - "The technique was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949[10] during his tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago. Libby estimated that the radioactivity of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram of pure carbon, and this is still used as the activity of the modern radiocarbon standard" 

I don't know how advanced science was in 1949. This is the same model used today. 

Look up the half life of C14 and they simply say - 5730 years... the results of an obscure calculation. Biblical scholars date the world no more than 6 thousand years old, btw. 

[Occupational Hubris]

26 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I know they are not off. That is definitely not my argument. We have at work in the universe fundamental constants of physics and chemistry, exact numerical values that are in operation at any given moment. And as I said before, if any of these values were slightly off, it would cause huge disruptions in the world and the rest of the universe. It's not just one constant but multiple, perfectly fine-tuned to allow for life. This is astonishing! Intelligence at work. 

From OP article - "change various particle masses and charges, and the stars would burn too quickly or too slowly, or atoms and molecules, including water, carbon and oxygen, would not form or would not remain stable.

It is not that we cannot imagine another world in which intelligence or life might exist. It is rather that, in this world, any of a hundred small shifts this way or that would render everything blank. Astrophysicists John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk calculate that "small changes in the electric charge of the electron would block any kind of chemistry" ("The Structure of the Early Universe," Scientific American, April 1980: see also John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle). A fractional difference, and there would have been nothing. It would be so easy to miss, and there are no hits in the revised universes we can imagine: and yet this universe is a delicate, intricate hit."

It's not fine tuned at all. We are just a result. It's bias and religious gullibility that makes you think otherwise. 

[cormac mac airt]

13 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Those things you mentioned are the results of either preprogrammed instructions in the DNA, and/or pre-existing chemical and physical laws. Which my point is that, there is intelligence behind them (the laws, etc). 

No. Even there, you will find coded instructions in the DNA. Natural selection is limited to what is already in the DNA. It cannot select for something that is not there. You can breed a bunch of dogs to get different kinds of dogs. But no matter how long you try, you'll never get a cat. We have no observational evidence of a jump from one kind to the next, like a cat to a rat or something else. 

The whole millions of years thing is also unsubstantiated. Carbon dating has some loopholes. Can we observe the C14 half-life? And determining the original C14 content is debatable. 

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/carbon-dating-accuracy-major-flaw

Wiki - "The technique was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949[10] during his tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago. Libby estimated that the radioactivity of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram of pure carbon, and this is still used as the activity of the modern radiocarbon standard" 

I don't know how advanced science was in 1949. This is the same model used today. 

Look up the half life of C14 and they simply say - 5730 years... the results of an obscure calculation. Biblical scholars date the world no more than 6 thousand years old, btw. 

No, it’s NOT. DNA originates from RNA which itself originated from amino acids and their precursors. ALL over the last circa 3 - 4 billion years. Even coming more recently into near modern times human DNA, whether Y Chromosomal or Mitochondrial, has each gone from a single to a few haplogroups to several THOUSAND just within the last circa 200,000 - 300,000 years. Your ignorance of multiple disciplines while pontificating on what’s “possible” concerning same is grossly embarrassing and laughable to say the least. 
 

cormac

[+joc]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

You said something stupid and your friends are embarrassed for you. Just deal with it, Hudson.

Don't know who Hudson is.  Didn't catch the humor there...

...none the less... For all of my friends that didn't see the humor in my remark...I humbly apologize. 

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, joc said:

Don't know who Hudson is.  Didn't catch the humor there...

...none the less... For all of my friends that didn't see the humor in my remark...I humbly apologize. 

Bill Paxton Alien 2 Good character, totally real and cringeworthy sometimes.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Hammerclaw

[+joc]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

Bill Paxton Alien 2

Watched Aliens...never saw Alien 2...if it is ever on Netflix I will.  My apology is sincere btw.

[+Hammerclaw]

Just now, joc said:

Watched Aliens...never saw Alien 2...if it is ever on Netflix I will.  My apology is sincere btw.

If you haven't ever seen Aliens 2, you should apologize to yourself. It's the epitome of awesomeness! Favorite line-Ripley to Hudson, "Hudson, just deal with it, because we need you and I'm sick of your bullsh!t."

[Arbenol]

32 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

You can breed a bunch of dogs to get different kinds of dogs. But no matter how long you try, you'll never get a cat. We have no observational evidence of a jump from one kind to the next, like a cat to a rat or something else. 

You're absolutely correct. A dog will never become a cat or a rat. Do you think that's what evolutionary theory says?

35 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

The whole millions of years thing is also unsubstantiated. Carbon dating has some loopholes. Can we observe the C14 half-life? And determining the original C14 content is debatable. 

The absolute limit of carbon dating is 60,000 years. That you think carbon dating is used to date things millions of years old shows how little you understand of these subjects.

Have your own beliefs, but if you're going to try to prove the existence of god by attacking science you should at least understand a little bit about the science to start with. 

[+joc]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Lol

It doesn't. 

If you ever have a n hour to kill...you might find this interesting:

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by joc

[+Sherapy]

51 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Those things you mentioned are the results of either preprogrammed instructions in the DNA, and/or pre-existing chemical and physical laws. Which my point is that, there is intelligence behind them (the laws, etc). 

No. Even there, you will find coded instructions in the DNA. Natural selection is limited to what is already in the DNA. It cannot select for something that is not there. You can breed a bunch of dogs to get different kinds of dogs. But no matter how long you try, you'll never get a cat. We have no observational evidence of a jump from one kind to the next, like a cat to a rat or something else. 

The whole millions of years thing is also unsubstantiated. Carbon dating has some loopholes. Can we observe the C14 half-life? And determining the original C14 content is debatable. 

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/carbon-dating-accuracy-major-flaw

Wiki - "The technique was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues in 1949[10] during his tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago. Libby estimated that the radioactivity of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram of pure carbon, and this is still used as the activity of the modern radiocarbon standard" 

I don't know how advanced science was in 1949. This is the same model used today. 

Look up the half life of C14 and they simply say - 5730 years... the results of an obscure calculation. Biblical scholars date the world no more than 6 thousand years old, btw. 

Read, the theory of evolution proposes that the process of natural selection, acting upon genetic variation, is responsible for the development of complex life forms over millions of years.
 

Intelligence, in the sense of a guiding or “conscious” force, is not required for this process. 

 

Rather, the variation in traits arises from random genetic mutations, and the traits that provide a survival advantage are more likely to be passed on to future generations. This gradual accumulation of beneficial traits over time, without the need for intentional design or intervention, is the essence of the theory of evolution.

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Sherapy

[+joc]

1 hour ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

I did.

I have many arguments against 'science false so called.' But I have no arguments against true and unbiased observations of the natural world and its principles. 

What is 'science false so called'?

[+Sherapy]

3 minutes ago, joc said:

What is 'science false so called'?

Maybe she meant to post  “so called false science”

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

11 hours ago, Sherapy said:

The laws governing the behavior of the universe, such as gravity and electromagnetism, have been observed to operate consistently and predictably. While we don't fully understand the origin of these laws, they do not necessarily require an intelligent mind for their existence.

Emergent properties deals with developments arising from the collaborative functioning of a system... I am talking about the pre-existing laws already governing that system (laws of nature).  

Just can't believe we would accept that these could have come about on their own. The more I understand the world the more crazy the atheistic science narrative looks. Everything works together for life to exist - even gravity. It is very intentional. 

[+joc]

31 minutes ago, joc said:

Watched Aliens...never saw Alien 2...if it is ever on Netflix I will.  My apology is sincere btw.

Well I guess I actually did watch Aliens...when it first came out in 1986.  The original movie in 1979 was Alien.  Alien 2 was actually Aliens.  So, yes, I did watch it...but that was a long time ago and basically all I remember is the dripping of acid from the Alien's mouth.  

At any rate...got the Hudson humor there.  Sorry, not everyone caught  the humor in my faux pas.

[+joc]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Maybe she meant to post  “so called false science”

Okay...  @ReadTheGreatControversyEGW  what is 'so called False Science'.

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Emergent properties deals with developments arising from the collaborative functioning of a system... I am talking about the pre-existing laws already governing that system (laws of nature).  

Just can't believe we would accept that these could have come about on their own. The more I understand the world the more crazy the atheistic science narrative looks. Everything works together for life to exist - even gravity. It is very intentional. 

There wouldn’t have been many, if any, pre-existing laws before the first circa 380,000 years AFTER the Big Bang as stars and galaxies hadn’t even existed yet. That’s not remotely a sign of intelligent design. 
 

cormac

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

This really bothers me..this lie we have been told. I am not looking at just one thing. But the whole picture. The world is so well designed and organized. It's not just life existing, but existing in style. Beauty and symmetry, perfect organization and variety. All designed to attend to our needs and happiness. The sun, and air and water and the ground we need for stability and sustenance. How plants and trees give off oxygen for life. They could have looked deformed and strange but no, they are beautiful. Delightful.   

[+joc]

2 hours ago, ReadTheGreatControversyEGW said:

Quote

how does a powerful majestic intelligent mind come into being? 

It doesn't. 

So, the majestic intelligent being doesn't have a beginning?  

[ReadTheGreatControversyEGW]

12 hours ago, Sherapy said:

The laws governing the behavior of the universe, such as gravity and electromagnetism, have been observed to operate consistently and predictably. While we don't fully understand the origin of these laws, they do not necessarily require an intelligent mind for their existence.

Where there is a Law - there is a Lawgiver.