Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Anomalocaris]

The line of reasoning which points to life as we know it being impossible if certain physical constants whose value were different form what they are is equally applicable to each and everything else in the universe. After all, the assemblage of atoms depends on the ratio of the strengths of weak, strong, magnetic and gravitational forces. The assemblage of atoms into rocks also depends on the ratio of strengths of these forces. The movement of these rocks to their particular locations again depends on these ratios. Ergo The universe is finely tune to make that rock over there too. If any physical constant is even slightly changed, that rock either wouldn't be there, or wouldn't exist at all. In fact even the kinds of elementary particles it is made from would not exist for most other values of basic physical constants. So fact our universe is fine tuned for each and everything in it. If any of the tuning parameters are different, any specific thing you can point to would likely not exist.

Therefore the universe is fine tuned to make that rock be exactly there at this precise moment. Life is just a accidental insignificant byproduct arising from the work of a designer who really wanted to bring about THAT rock and place it there.

[Tonus]

The fine-tuning argument, to me, implies that there is no other set of values that could have led to life in the universe. Otherwise it's not much of an argument, as rasetsu pointed out. So the question is, do we know for certain which knobs on the universe's Options and Settings Menu have to be set to precise values, and how far off would those values need to be to render the whole universe into a solid lump of nothing?

Water will only boil at 212 degrees Farenheit, but I can cook up a half-decent hot dog with only 200. Checkmate, theists!

[Angrboda]

The fine-tuning argument, to me, implies that there is no other set of values that could have led to life in the universe. Otherwise it's not much of an argument, as rasetsu pointed out. So the question is, do we know for certain which knobs on the universe's Options and Settings Menu have to be set to precise values, and how far off would those values need to be to render the whole universe into a solid lump of nothing?

Water will only boil at 212 degrees Farenheit, but I can cook up a half-decent hot dog with only 200. Checkmate, theists!

Recently deceased Victor Stenger did simulations in which you vary more than one parameter at a time (fine tuning advocates typically only look at what would happen if you vary only one parameter in isolation). He found that in something like half the cases one could yield a universe sufficiently stable to serve as a crucible for some form of life.

[Anomalocaris]

Another basis of fine tune argument is supposition that the so called tuning parameters really not only can be different in some principle, but can in some principle assume a range of values that is very wide compared to the range under which life may arise. This principle is unfortunately nonexistent, and is nothing but an argument from ignorance. We know not why the constants have these values and what limits there are on the range of values they can take, therefore we based an entire world view on the supposition that they can take on any arbitrary value and their actual value in our universe is therefore statistically unlikely.

This is in turn based on the supposition that there is no deeper, more fundamental principles of nature which constricts the range of, or even determines the exact values these parameters can take, and these constants therefore behave like some quantum probability curve. But there may very well be. Physics may yet reveal there are deeper layers of operations behind apparent reality which actually limits the possible values of these so called tuning parameter to a narrow range of values, to a limited set of discreet values, or to just a single value each.

Where would the tuning hand of the all powerful god be then if all of what we currently think of as free spinning dials turnout to be by nature fixed and unsusceptible to any input? Would fime tuners then admit there is no god should physics go on to demonstrate constants of nature are what they are for a reason other than their purposed tuning from a range of possible value by an intelligent creator?

I don't think so. It is the nature of wish thinker to grab onto any apparent support as probe positive of their proposition. But if the support should collapse, they would never admit to the opposite implication.

[pocaracas]

---

the universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. if the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. what determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface). in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". goes on to say that the cosmological constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison the est. atoms in observable universe is 10^80 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=num...e+universe). continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
heavy metal are essential to make planets, and make advanced life possible, examples - nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, boron, iron, etc. these elements are produced in the furnaces of stars from hydrogen, helium. 9 billion years after the big bang, a period that encompassed 3 generations of stars (formed, burned, scattered cycle), stars spewed enough of these heavy elements into interstellar space to form earth's solar system which was 4.5 billion years ago. without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place.

---

afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

Wow!!


Bacteria perform nuclear fission?!?!?!

[Cyberman]

Ok Snowy, you presented your evidence. Now your homework assignment is to establish why you think it's evidence for what you are claiming; viz that the Universe was determined. Please include data which establishes that the Universe could have occurred any other way, ie that the parameters of its formation were not immutable.

For extra credit, please find a way of rationalising your quote from The Grand Design with this one which concludes the exact same chapter: "But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit."

[RobbyPants]

in a couple days, I'm posting evidence (that's right, evidence) that the universe was determined. going to be a lot of people getting on their knees confessing their sins, and there are beaucoup sins to be confessed.

the universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. if the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. what determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface). in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". goes on to say that the cosmological constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison the est. atoms in observable universe is 10^80 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=num...e+universe). continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
heavy metal are essential to make planets, and make advanced life possible, examples - nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, boron, iron, etc. these elements are produced in the furnaces of stars from hydrogen, helium. 9 billion years after the big bang, a period that encompassed 3 generations of stars (formed, burned, scattered cycle), stars spewed enough of these heavy elements into interstellar space to form earth's solar system which was 4.5 billion years ago. without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

Your previous attempt at the Fine Tuning argument was refuted tens of pages ago. All that was learned is you don't understand iterative probability and have much disdain for that puddle/hole image macro.

Were you hoping we'd forgotten?

[Brakeman]

Wow!!


Bacteria perform nuclear fission?!?!?!

Only when needed by Jebus to explain himself! At other times the bacteria turns water into wine.

[snowtracks]

Ok Snowy, you presented your evidence. Now your homework assignment is to establish why you think it's evidence for what you are claiming; viz that the Universe was determined. Please include data which establishes that the Universe could have occurred any other way, ie that the parameters of its formation were not immutable.

For extra credit, please find a way of rationalising your quote from The Grand Design with this one which concludes the exact same chapter: "But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit."

like we didn't know hawking is atheist and his latest book would have a naturalism conclusion. admirable of you to watch over some unsuspecting posters that might read a few sentences on a mssg board and change their worldview. if they really are that weak-minded seems it would be best to just let them go.
the contemporary scientific enterprise is locked in to interpreting data to fit into a naturalism framework which means all theories, discoveries, and phenomenon must explained materialistically or make an appeal to the future. so what else could he say even if he thought otherwise? naturalistic researchers, scientists, authors will never interpret data, observation that won't have a materialistic conclusion. for instance - "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." -Richard Dawkins. interesting to read what they say, but the conclusion won't be philosophically unbiased.
-------------------
multiverse is metaphysical speculation; paul davies knows that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book) and hawking knows that as well.
------------------------
given: if 1/10^80 is = one universe atom, then 1/10^120 = one hershey bar
therefore if space energy density increased a hershey bar, and the mass density remained the same = no universe.
but if anyone thinks this ultra-precision margin was a coincidence, by all means go with that.
------------------------------
later there was another 'coincidence': the sun's flaring and chromospheric activity is currently at the lowest level in it's past history and in it's projected future life cycle (total life cycle around 9 billion years). soon, in astronomical time, the sun's hydrogen to helium conversion cycle (last half cycle) commences and will again flair and be hostile to life. so it just happens that mankind enters the world stage at the time when solar hostile flaring is at it's lowest ebb phase.

---

You need to read an actual science book - not some woo-woo book by non-scientists.

Do you actually believe bacteria break down heavy metals? Do you even science?

Wow!!


Bacteria perform nuclear fission?!?!?!

here's some examples.
The bacteria take zinc and sulfur from the water and combine them to create a byproduct of sphalerite--the sulfide usually reacts with metals such as zinc to create insoluble products.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5266797_sph...ormed.html
Sulfate-reducing bacteria can be traced back to 3.5 billion years ago and are considered to be among the oldest forms of microorganisms, having contributed to the sulfur cycle soon after life emerged on Earth.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...lfur+cycle

---

---

the universe's expansion rate has been balanced at just the right rate to make advanced life possible. if the expansion rate were too rapid, stars and planets would not form since gravity wouldn't have adequate time to pull together the gases and dust that make up these bodies. if the expansion rate weren't rapid enough, the stars formed would rapidly collapse and become black holes or neutron stars. what determines this expansion rate is gravity and dark energy (a property that stretches the universe's space/time surface). in the book 'the grand design' by hawking, mlodinow, of which I have in ebook form, in chapter 7 this statement is made. "the laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without the possibility of the development of life as we know it". goes on to say that the cosmological constant (the energy density that causes the universe's expansion) has a value 10^120 (as a comparison the est. atoms in observable universe is 10^80 (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=num...e+universe). continuing - "the one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form--once again--life as we know it would impossible".
heavy metal are essential to make planets, and make advanced life possible, examples - nitrogen, oxygen, potassium, boron, iron, etc. these elements are produced in the furnaces of stars from hydrogen, helium. 9 billion years after the big bang, a period that encompassed 3 generations of stars (formed, burned, scattered cycle), stars spewed enough of these heavy elements into interstellar space to form earth's solar system which was 4.5 billion years ago. without the ultra precision spot on balance between gravity and dark energy over this extended period time, heavy metal production wouldn't have taken place. afterward, these heavy metals in high concentration then had to be broken down (bacteria action) into soluble form which took several billion more years. when coincidences like these multiply, the 'random happenstances' point of view grows less and less plausible and reaches a point where it should be abandoned.

---

Your previous attempt at the Fine Tuning argument was refuted tens of pages ago. All that was learned is you don't understand iterative probability and have much disdain for that puddle/hole image macro.

Were you hoping we'd forgotten?

poor guy is doing the best with what he has to work with.

[pocaracas]

Wow!!


Bacteria perform nuclear fission?!?!?!

here's some examples.
The bacteria take zinc and sulfur from the water and combine them to create a byproduct of sphalerite--the sulfide usually reacts with metals such as zinc to create insoluble products.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5266797_sph...ormed.html
Sulfate-reducing bacteria can be traced back to 3.5 billion years ago and are considered to be among the oldest forms of microorganisms, having contributed to the sulfur cycle soon after life emerged on Earth.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...lfur+cycle

Seriously, now... what does organic (the sulfur kind) chemistry has to do with breaking down heavy metals?
A metal is an element in the middle part of the periodic table, the further down the table, the heavier it is.
Breaking down any element, you get lighter elements and the most common element that undergoes such breaking down is Uranium-238... well, not really, phosphorous is probably much more common, as you can find it in clay which make up bricks and can be found in every construction site, but it's not a metal.

But you were talking about sulfate and sulfide, both compounds which have sulfur in them... along with other things.
Sulfide is S^2-, which is just an ion of sulfur with 2 extra electrons, ready to combine with some other ion with a deficit of electrons.
Sulfate is SO4^2-, a molecular ion, also with 2 extra electrons.
What do these have to do with breaking down heavy metals?