Crispy Bacon

Okay forget the Bible verses and focus on everything else I said. I will repost my same message without the Bible verses to make you happy. Our claim isn't that this universe contains the most amount of life that you could fit in it. We're saying that if things were slightly different, there wouldn't be any life at all. Saying how horrible things have been and will become doesn't change the precision of the fine-tuning. The formation of stable nuclei depends on the ratio of the strong and electromagnetic forces - the protons in a nucleus repel each other, but the strong force overcomes this repulsion. A small change in their relative strengths would allow the electromagnetic force to overcome the strong force, and atoms could not exist. If electrons were any more massive, then electrons and protons would be disposed to bond and form neutrons, thus disrupting the formation of heavy elements. The strength of gravity is also important: if it were any stronger, stellar matter would bind more strongly and stars would use their nuclear fuel much faster, thus negating the possibility of the evolution of life. If gravity were any weaker, matter would not "clump together" to form larger structures, thereby preventing the formation of stars in the first place. http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml How does multivariation help? Please explain.

There needed to be a first uncaused cause. There can't be an inf regress of causes and that's the point. Also you don't get to the Christiain God lol.

Our claim isn't that this universe contains the most amount of life that you could fit in it. We're saying that if things were slightly different, there wouldn't be any life at all. Saying how horrible things have been and will become doesn't change the precision of the fine-tuning. There are many Bible verses saying bad things will happen before the end. Luke 21:11, Luke 21:25, Matt 24:29, Matt 24:7, Luke 17:29, Mark 13:25, Rev 6:12-13, 2 Peter 3:10-12. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist.

In same cases it doesn't matter if you move more than 1 constant. Like for the example I gave, what would change the odds on that? http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml

I was asked to summarize this argument, and so I shall. Here goes nothing. 1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself. Some say quantum mechanics refutes my first premise, but that is a lie. Virtual particles particles are not really created from "nothing", but rather a quantum vacuum which contains energy to permit for the spontaneous existence of matter. to prove the universe can't be enteral I will say the number of past events (of the universe) can't be infinite, and the universe must have a definite beginning to its existence. There must be an uncaused first cause.

I gave you the sources and information, if you choose to only look at 1 side of the evidence, that's your problem.

http://ia700304.us.archive.org/26/items/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot040-LukeBarnes/040-LukeBarnes.mp3 He talks about that.

Audio references http://ia700304.us.archive.org/26/items/ConversationsFromThePaleBlueDot040-LukeBarnes/040-LukeBarnes.mp3 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-anthropic-universe/3302686 Online referenceshttp://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647 http://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/in-defence-of-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-for-intelligent-life/ Book references"Just Six Numbers." Martin Rees . "Cosmic Coincidences." John Gribbin & Martin Rees "The Cosmic Landscape". Leonard Susskind "The Universe: a biography". John Gribbin "The Accidental Universe". Paul Davies "The Mind of God". Paul Davies "The Emperor's New Mind". Roger Penrose The 1st link in the audio reerences goes over your statement.

The majority view appears to be that it is highly unlikely that the universe could take on such values by chance. Gribbin & Rees ("Cosmic Coincidences"): "The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves." Leonard Susskind ("The Cosmic Landscape")" "To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident." Paul Davies ("The Mind of God"): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". Astronomer Fred Hoyle ("The Universe: Past and Present Reflections"): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Lee Smolin ("Life of the Cosmos"): Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, in the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10229." Roger Penrose, former Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University and a cosmologist who worked with Stephen Hawking ("The Emperor's New Mind"): "This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. This is an extraordinary figure."

I was pointing out there is more that went into the formation of stars than those 3 constants.

finely-tuned initial condition: The critical density of the universe = In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 10^15 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed. This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt. Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), 72-73. Specific numbers were taken from Appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville, KY[0]: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009). See also Rodney D. Holder, "Is the Universe Designed?" Faraday Papers, no. 10 (2007).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCBTCh-2fCc

gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. He only let the constants vary a limited range, and used limited set of criteria. Luke Barnes says, "Adams' work cannot support these claims Besides there are many more cases of fine-tuning! Not just these 3 or the weak force!

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. As time goes on the ammount of energy in the universe is decreasing. This shows the universe did have beginning or it would have ran out of energy a long time ago.

*sigh* did you even watch the video lol?

Embedded within the laws of physics are roughly 30 numbers—including the masses of the elementary particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces—that must be specified to describe the universe as we know it. (1)The fundamental numbers, and even the form of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle, meaning they could have taken on different values. (2)However the problem is that small changes in there relative strengths would have had devastating consequences for life. (3) By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist. (4) "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming" – Paul Davies (Professor at Arizona State University) (5) http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/designfacts.shtml http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning Watch The Teleological Argument (What is really says) Watch Refuting Weak Anthropic Principle Arguments Watch God's Hand Was NOT Forced 1. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/author/lsmolin/ 2. The Grand Design page 143 3. http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning 4. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning 5. The Cosmic Blueprint p203 ....................... Refuting weak responses. 1) Because things are bad, the universe isn't fine-tuned. Our claim isn't that this universe contains the most amount of life that you could fit in it. We're saying that if things were slightly different, there wouldn't be any life at all. Saying how horrible things have been and will become doesn't change the precision of the fine-tuning. There are many Bible verses saying bad things will happen before the end. Luke 21:11, Luke 21:25, Matt 24:29, Matt 24:7, Luke 17:29, Mark 13:25, Rev 6:12-13, 2 Peter 3:10-12. 2) Life adapted to conditions We're not talking about what life can adapt too, that's not the issue here. The issue is what the universe needs to do before any form of life is even possible. You're going to need gluons, quarks, electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms (stable atoms), molecules, elements (heavy elements), planets, stars (long lived stars), galaxies, ect. The universal constants and initial conditions are finely balanced on a razor's edge, and if they were slightly different you wouldn't have the ingredients for life. 3) A different kind of life could exist. What I want to say here is if we're to avoid talking nonsense than we need to define what we clearly mean by life. By life scientist mean that property of organisms that take in food, extract energy from it, adapt, grow, and reproduce. And the point is that in order to permit life the constants and initial conditions have to be so finely tuned that it's incomprehensible. Scientist that study fine-tuning are fully aware of alternative proposed forms of life, and the problem is they don't work. Also chemistry itself wouldn't even be around, no heavy elements for life to be built from. 4) How do we know this isn't the only way the universe could have been Physicist Stephen Hawking says, "It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle.” Also you would have to believe that a life-prohibiting universe is physically impossible, but a life-prohibiting universe is logically possible and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Saying the universe had to take a form suitable for life is ridiculous, which is why physical necessity has few, if any supporters. 5) The odds are 1:1 because we're here Imagine you're being dragged before a firing squad of one hundred trained marksmen to be executed. The command is given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" You hear the deafening roar of the guns. But then you observe that you're still alive, that all the one hundred trained marksmen missed! You're telling me you would say, "The chances of the bullets missing are 1:1 because I'm alive! Let's not even look into why they missed" A logical approach would be to find out why the bullets missed or in the case of fine-tuning why these constants are so fine-tuned. 6) Because if we weren’t here we wouldn’t notice it What if someone asked "why are quasars so bright" and suppose someone else answered "because otherwise we wouldn't be able to see them". Well that's true, but it doesn’t answer the question. Quasars are massive black holes and as the matter is falling towards the black hole it gets extremely hot and luminous, as a result all the energy is released. So when someone asks “why is the universe so finely-tuned for life?” Should we answer “Because if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be here.” 7) Improbabilities happen all the time. The fine-tuning argument doesn't simply argue high improbability; it argues high improbability with what results from it. We have a extraordinary finely-tuned complex universe coming out of nothing. With your example nothing happens, there is no special potentiality that makes a difference. No complexity, no order, no creation of atoms, no creation of massive stars or galaxies. You’re trying to get people to sit around in ignorance and not look into why our universe is so finely-tuned! 8) M-verse There is currently no experimental evidence in support of the M-verse "hypothesis". While there is some support in physics for string theory and inflationary cosmology, they are currently provisional and highly speculative. However I actually believe the multiverse exists, but is insufficient in accounting for the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. (see links) http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/do-multiverse-scenarios-solve-the-problem-of-fine-tuning/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0246.pdf Inflation takes care of some of the initial conditions Inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own. In order to produce such an enormous inflationary rate of expansion—and to result in the necessary values for our universe's critical density—inflation theories rely upon two or more parameters to take on particularly precise values. These values are so precise that the problem of fine-tuning remains and is only pushed one step back 10) Cosmological natural selection The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models. Also Planck has given us a lot of evidence that indicates incredibly fast expansion, just after the Big Bang. (Fine-tuned) 11) God-of-the-gaps A god of the gaps is using a god to fill in missing information in a process. Fine-tuning is pointing to a designer. Atheist physicist Martin Rees said, “Their own discoveries were pointing them to an intelligent designer.” It’s not a god-of-the-gaps, fine-tuning is leading to God. 12) Fred Adams Fred Adams has been criticized for making unjustified assumptions by many physicists. He only let the constants very a limited range and used a limited set of criteria. Luke Barnes says, "Adams' work cannot support these claims". Even if it did (which it doesn't) there are plenty more fine-tuning claims that Adams hasn't addressed. 13) Victor Strenger Strenger's work has been criticized by other physicists for having several fundamental flaws. He ignores the most significant factors in his calculations. He even admits his "oversimplification" LoL. Also Luke Barnes argues his "solutions" to the fine-tuned universe are fine-tuned themselves!

The new Planck data render many cyclic models, including the ekpyrotic universe, a lot less likely (That means cosmological natural selection is out the window). A lack of non-Gaussianities in the CMB spectrum rules out the conversion mechanism required by most cyclic models.

"and yes I can make up my own God and it's limitations" yes you can but you sure as hell arn't going to apply them to my God is uncaused and never began to exist.

Again "everything which "begins to exist" has a cause apart from itself. The Christian God never began to exist! You can't make up your own god and apply your gods limitations to mine!!

Because all the scientific evidence (that I know of) points to a beginning, and there is no scientific evidence (that I know of) that points to an enternal universe. Even Richard Dawkins believes the universe began to exist and that guy has "Alot" of sources.

You are talking about the quantum vacuum which is NOT nothing. What about the 2nd law? Exactly, "everything which beggins to exist has a cause apart from itself" - God didn't begin to exist.

Hey, I will do that for you when I get back, I will try to be back fast. Sorry for the long wait.

You're just like richard dickens. NO one believes in created gods. Created gods are a delusion, and that's why he named his book the god delusion. The Bible both says God is beyond timeTitus 1:2 and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't effect him Psalm 102:25-27. "as hard as physicists have worked to try to construct an alternative, so far all the models that we construct have a beginning." - Alan Guth "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Tufts University Many Worlds in One, p. 176

Some of the best examples of the fallacy of equivocation involve treating the word nothing as if it were a type of something. The quantum vacuum is a type of something. It has properties. It has energy, it fluctuates, it can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, it obeys the equations of quantum field theory. We can describe it. We can calculate, predict and falsify its properties. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem postulates that the quantum vacuum must have an absolute beginning.

Okay, when I get back (in 8 hours) I will give you a detailed summary of the video. I'm just so tired I haven't slept in 24 hours. If you can't wait 8 hours just watch the video and tell me what you think I will be back to read your thoughts in 8 h. Bye.