Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 20, 2012 at 5:51 pm (This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm by Jackalope.)
(September 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: The following is copied from Reasonable Faith's website:
Let me give some examples of fine tuning because physics abounds with examples of fine tuning. But before I do so, let me give you some numbers to give you a feel for the delicacy of the fine tuning because otherwise the numbers are so large they become meaningless to us. The number of seconds in the history of the universe, from the very beginning of the universe, is about 10^17. That is a 1 followed by 17 zeroes. Just an incomprehensible number – but that is the number of seconds in the universe. The number of subatomic particles in the entire known universe is around 10^80.
With those numbers in mind, consider the following. The atomic weak force which operates within the nucleus of the atom is so finely tuned that an alteration of even one part out of 10^100 would have rendered the universe life-prohibiting. In order to permit life, the weak force has to be fine tuned to one part out of 10^100. Similarly, the so called cosmological constant, which drives the acceleration of the universe, has to be fine tuned to within one part out of 10^120 in order for the universe to be life- permitting. Here is a real corker: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has estimated that the initial entropy condition – the entropy level of the early universe – has to be fine tuned to one part out of 10^10^(123) – a number which is so incomprehensible that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement.
It is not just one of these numbers that must be fine tuned but all of them. So you multiply these probabilities together until our minds are just reeling in incomprehensible numbers. Having an accuracy of even one part out of 10^60 would be like having a range the size of the entire visible universe – 20 billion light years across – and in order for life to exist, a randomly thrown dart would have to land in an area one inch square. And that is just one part in 10^60! We are talking about numbers that are just unimaginably greater than that.
These are just some of the examples of fine tuning. The examples of fine tuning are so many and so various that they are unlikely to disappear with the further advance of science. Like it or not, the fine tuning of the universe for life is just a scientific fact which is well-established.
Where is the evidence for fine tuning? That we happen to live in a universe who's physical parameters happen to match those required for us to exist? Well, la-de-fricken-da. Has it occurred to you that we are incapable of existing in, and therefore observing any other kind of universe?
Quote:Like it or not, the fine tuning of the universe for life is just a scientific fact which is well-established.
The above is nothing more than the speaker's wishful thinking. I beleive he's parroting a quote attributed to Paul Davies, who asserted that it was scientific fact and broadly agreed upon by cosmologists and physicists. Who are these cosmologists and physicists? We'll wait.
It's not conclusive, but i would say in the case of winning lottery again, and again, and again, and again, it points to something else then simply chance, although chance remains possible, it's not the most logical one to believe in.
September 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm (This post was last modified: September 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm by Haydn2.)
(September 20, 2012 at 5:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's not conclusive, but i would say in the case of winning lottery again, and again, and again, and again, it points to something else then simply chance, although chance remains possible, it's not the most logical one to believe in.
It is if you understand it.
Do you mean the chances of life occuring? Well it did happen , so we know its definately possible.
Multiply that chance by the number of planets where it could occur (and that maybe alot larger then the chance of life in occuring itself) and thats only assuming life as we know it.
So in all 'probability' (aargh i hate the chance arguement!) it's probaly happened elsewhere , many times before and.... again....and again , again etc.
(September 20, 2012 at 5:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's not conclusive, but i would say in the case of winning lottery again, and again, and again, and again, it points to something else then simply chance, although chance remains possible, it's not the most logical one to believe in.
Is that so? What do you think the odds of someone winning the same lottery drawing twice on the same day are?
(September 20, 2012 at 6:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:
(September 20, 2012 at 5:52 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's not conclusive, but i would say in the case of winning lottery again, and again, and again, and again, it points to something else then simply chance, although chance remains possible, it's not the most logical one to believe in.
Is that so?
Twice is something else. But if someone won 12 times in a row, would you think it's chance or something going on?
Ofcourse it's logical possible for a person to win the lottery twelve times in a row...but I would say we should suspect something else is going on (like lottery being rigged or something) if someone wins 12 times in a row.
(September 20, 2012 at 6:12 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Twice is something else. But if someone won 12 times in a row, would you think it's chance or something going on?
I'd certainly reserve judgment on the matter pending evidence and not assume that highly improbable == goddidit.
If evidince could be found that indicated that the game was not fair (i.e. is rigged), then of course it would be reasonable to conclude that it was.
Going back to Reasonable_Jeff's post, all I see is assertions of improbability and assertions of a divine hand in tuning - and none of that "evidence" stuff.
