[_ Old Earth _] Fine Tuning

[Drew]

I am going to start a thread on this topic. It has nothing to do with evolution - the focus is instead cosmology. I plan to adopt the strategy of only responding to those posters who I believe are interested in a serious and even-handed discussion of this issue. Obviously, anyone can post whatever they want, but I do not intend to be drawn into sub-conversations that I deem are fruitless. And, of course, I will not "complain" about what other posters write - I have no right at all to limit other people's input.

OK, with that out of the way, here goes.

I saw a youtube clip in which Christopher Hitchens (a very aggressive critic of religion of all forms) "concedes" that the so-called fine-tuning argument is the creationist's best piece of evidence. Note that I use the term "creationist" to denote any person who believes God created the universe (even if He did so billions of years ago).

The idea is that in order for structures and life to have evolved, certain physical constants must have assumed very special values. Here is one example: There is a quantity, omega, which represents the balance between the attractive force of gravity and the speed of the expansion of the universe following the Big Bang. If omega had not been exactly equal to 1 at the very beginning, life could not have formed in our universe (at least this is what expert Martin Rees asserts).

I think this is what Hitchens is talking about - it is very tempting to conclude that some "agent" must have selected omega to be exactly 1. There is, not surprisingly, a counterargument - if there are many universes, ours might just be the one where omega happened to exactly equal 1 whereas in all the other universes, omega was not equal to 1 and none of them produced life. In that "multi-universe" model, the argument for a "creative hand" is basically lost. It's like someone who wins the lottery - it may seem like a miracle to that person but, of course, it is not.

Anyway, I find the fine-tuning argument to be quite compelling. I believe there are other quantities, beside omega, that had to assume very specific values or otherwise life could not have arisen.

 

[jasonc]

to take that postion that Hitchens did to assume that we are here by chance. life has no meaning save what we give it. that is the philosophy that would arise from that.

 

[Free]

I am going to start a thread on this topic. It has nothing to do with evolution - the focus is instead cosmology. I plan to adopt the strategy of only responding to those posters who I believe are interested in a serious and even-handed discussion of this issue. Obviously, anyone can post whatever they want, but I do not intend to be drawn into sub-conversations that I deem are fruitless. And, of course, I will not "complain" about what other posters write - I have no right at all to limit other people's input.

OK, with that out of the way, here goes.

I saw a youtube clip in which Christopher Hitchens (a very aggressive critic of religion of all forms) "concedes" that the so-called fine-tuning argument is the creationist's best piece of evidence. Note that I use the term "creationist" to denote any person who believes God created the universe (even if He did so billions of years ago).

The idea is that in order for structures and life to have evolved, certain physical constants must have assumed very special values. Here is one example: There is a quantity, omega, which represents the balance between the attractive force of gravity and the speed of the expansion of the universe following the Big Bang. If omega had not been exactly equal to 1 at the very beginning, life could not have formed in our universe (at least this is what expert Martin Rees asserts).

I think this is what Hitchens is talking about - it is very tempting to conclude that some "agent" must have selected omega to be exactly 1. There is, not surprisingly, a counterargument - if there are many universes, ours might just be the one where omega happened to exactly equal 1 whereas in all the other universes, omega was not equal to 1 and none of them produced life. In that "multi-universe" model, the argument for a "creative hand" is basically lost. It's like someone who wins the lottery - it may seem like a miracle to that person but, of course, it is not.

Anyway, I find the fine-tuning argument to be quite compelling. I believe there are other quantities, beside omega, that had to assume very specific values or otherwise life could not have arisen.

I agree. The fine-tuning argument is quite strong. It has been quite some time since I looked into it but I have a few books that talk about it briefly and one book, "Rare Earth," that is exclusively about it. I just never finished reading it. But, yes, there are many quantities that needed to be just so for life to exist on Earth.

 

[Free]

I am here going to remind users to please read what this thread is about before replying. It has nothing to do with evolution or a six-day creation. This is the fine-tuning argument which, unless I am mistaken, is based solely on cosmology. It's a great topic to discuss and can be of benefit to everyone.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am here going to remind users to please read what this thread is about before replying. It has nothing to do with evolution or a six-day creation. This is the fine-tuning argument which, unless I am mistaken, is based solely on cosmology. It's a great topic to discuss and can be of benefit to everyone.

Free,
You are, of course, referring to my removed post but it was made as per my understanding of the topic;
cos·mol·o·gy
käzˈmäləjē/
noun
noun: cosmology
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
an account or theory of the origin of the universe.

As defined, cosmology is about origins making the removed post on subject. I understand that because I do not ever hide the fact that I did not graduate anything but Elementary School makes contempt easily attracted but I have yet to cease my education... just no degrees, very much unlike my uncle with a Bachelors Degree that could never spell tidbit.

I don't mean to offend but.

 

[Rick W]

"unlike my uncle with a Bachelors Degree that could never spell tidbit."





sorry

 

[th1b.taylor]

"unlike my uncle with a Bachelors Degree that could never spell tidbit."





sorry

LOL! I also still grin when I remember him asking me how to spell a word that is spelled perfectly by Phonetics.

 

[Free]

Free,
You are, of course, referring to my removed post but it was made as per my understanding of the topic;
cos·mol·o·gy
käzˈmäləjē/
noun
noun: cosmology
the science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which brings together observational astronomy and particle physics.
an account or theory of the origin of the universe.

As defined, cosmology is about origins making the removed post on subject. I understand that because I do not ever hide the fact that I did not graduate anything but Elementary School makes contempt easily attracted but I have yet to cease my education... just no degrees, very much unlike my uncle with a Bachelors Degree that could never spell tidbit.

I don't mean to offend but.

It wasn't just your post that was removed. I don't think you or the other poster understand what the fine-tuning argument is about and why Drew specifically stated, "It has nothing to do with evolution - the focus is instead cosmology". Your post implied that what was being presented in the OP was some alternative theory for Christians that doesn't match up with the Bible. You went on to defend a literal six-day creation. But none of that has to do with what is being presented by Drew.

Please do some research into what the fine-tuning argument entails and why it is a pretty significant argument for theism.

 

[jasonc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

 

[Gary]

From the wiki link:

My highlights.

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.

What are the actual odds of that happening? Anybody know?
.

 

[Drew]

Please note: The intent of this thread is to explore the possibility that even if standard evolutionary theory is a correct description of how life originated, a kind of "creationist" position can still be defended by arguing that for evolution to have even got off the ground in the first place, our universe would have to have such highly specific properties that a case can be made that these properties would need to have been "fixed" by an intelligent agent.

This, I think, is the kind of creationist argument that at least has some chance to make some headway (I do not think there is much doubt that Darwinian evolution is correct). So I think that defences of Young Earth Creationism miss the point: even if the Earth and the Universe are very old indeed, there is still a place for God to be the agent that created a Universe with such special features that allowed evolution to happen.

 

[Drew]

From the wiki link:

My highlights.


What are the actual odds of that happening? Anybody know?
.

You are indeed addressing what this thread is intended to be about. I do not have immediate access to such information but I believe that even the most "skeptical" experts would agree that had these constants been only slightly different, then life would be impossible. I hope to give more specific information later.

 

[Gary]

Please note: The intent of this thread is to explore the possibility that even if standard evolutionary theory is a correct description of how life originated, a kind of "creationist" position can still be defended by arguing that for evolution to have even got off the ground in the first place, our universe would have to have such highly specific properties that a case can be made that these properties would need to have been "fixed" by an intelligent agent.

There is no evidence to support that theory being correct.

This, I think, is the kind of creationist argument that at least has some chance to make some headway (I do not think there is much doubt that Darwinian evolution is correct). So I think that defences of Young Earth Creationism miss the point: even if the Earth and the Universe are very old indeed, there is still a place for God to be the agent that created a Universe with such special features that allowed evolution to happen.

Again, no supporting evidence.
.

 

[Free]

There is no evidence to support that theory being correct.




Again, no supporting evidence.
.

How about you stop focusing on the statements regarding evolution, since that is very clearly not what this topic is about, and address the other 90% of the post.

 

[Free]

I hope to give more specific information later.

As do I. This is a fairly significant argument for the theist.

 

[Edward]

Cosmology eh? I have some info on that. They say that at first there was nothing...and then it exploded, lol. Seriously though uh, since the advances in technology a lot of progress has been made and new things learned for facts, some old theories have been both proven and also disproven. One of the big things that we have learned in recent years is that the physics constants are not constant like we first thought. They thought that the universe was infinity, and we now know that we life in a finite universe with absolute limits both in the macrocosm and the microcosm (Big scale/small scale). They have proven this. We now know that we live in a holographic projection, that there most definitely are more dimensions than the four that we know about and can see. This info comes from scientists who are not even Christians or looking for or debating creationism or evolutionism. They're just scientists doing their job. Their words were that our reality is but a shadow of a larger reality that we can not see...Which is what the bible has been saying all along.

I got this info from a scientific journal and have it. I'd be happy to reproduce it here for your perusal if you like. It's a few years old so I don't think it's copyrighted or anything like that. Interested? It's a little long, but highly interesting. And not just some guys opinion.

 

[Gary]

How about you stop focusing on the statements regarding evolution, since that is very clearly not what this topic is about, and address the other 90% of the post.

I was addressing the author of the OP. If he wants to bring evolution into the discussion, I believe that's his right. And if I want to respond to his statements regarding evolution, I believe that's my right.

 

[Free]

I was addressing the author of the OP. If he wants to bring evolution into the discussion, I believe that's his right. And if I want to respond to his statements regarding evolution, I believe that's my right.

He mentioned it but that was not at all the point he was making, and that's my point. Keep this on topic, which is the fine tuning of the universe.

 

[Gary]

He mentioned it but that was not at all the point he was making, and that's my point. Keep this on topic, which is the fine tuning of the universe.

So I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on what is actually posted?
.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

So I'm not allowed to voice my opinion on what is actually posted?
.

From the Terms of Service.

Section 2.4
"Please refrain from taking a thread too far off topic. Slight tangents are ok, but we prefer to keep threads as they have been defined in the OP (Original Post)."

You can read more here:
http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?pages/terms-of-service/

So you can start a new thread and discuss evolution, or discuss it in another thread pertaining to the issue, but this thread is about Fine Tuning.