Zone1 Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Intelligent Design?

[BreezeWood]

And if we are going to assume other universe are different, rather than changing the atomic structure of matter ... the other universe would be filled with only radiation

rampant misguided speculation ... the radiation universe. get real.

such as a universe composed entirely of water - of which all laws of earthly physics would cease to exist as the origin of lite assumed to exist in the water universe.

 

[forkup]

rampant misguided speculation ... the radiation universe. get real.

such as a universe composed entirely of water - of which all laws of earthly physics would cease to exist as the origin of lite assumed to exist in the water universe.

That simply is ding MO. Make claims, and simply present them as facts. I've spent the last 2 days constantly asking him to actually provide evidence for them. As a reward I've encountered about every fallacy in the book in order to avoid it.

It's funny to see a grown man so completely unaware about the difference between his opinion and fact. My theory is that we are all narcissists, since we like expressing our opinion to complete strangers on a message board. But I'm still aware enough to distinguish between what I think and what I know. So, I suspect are most on this board.

But to simply be incapable. That's reserved for the worst of us I think.

 

[ding]

rampant misguided speculation ... the radiation universe. get real.

such as a universe composed entirely of water - of which all laws of earthly physics would cease to exist as the origin of lite assumed to exist in the water universe.

Which in reality would be no universe at all. It's amazing how many people argue against the science of the Big Bang.

 

[fncceo]

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. Precision leaves no room for error or for surprise results. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms—from which the Earth's elements are made—are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography)



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?


2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident, considering that, by definition, an accident causes "unfortunate" results and a spontaneous event shows lack of planning?


3. As concerns the elements on the Periodic Table, provide a credible explanation for why there was no need for an Intelligent Designer/God who caused them to come into existence, considering that all of the elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the words "LAW"?[/color]

Who, precisely, are you attempting to convince, and why?

 

[BreezeWood]

That simply is ding MO. Make claims, and simply present them as facts. I've spent the last 2 days constantly asking him to actually provide evidence for them. As a reward I've encountered about every fallacy in the book in order to avoid it.

It's funny to see a grown man so completely unaware about the difference between his opinion and fact. My theory is that we are all narcissists, since we like expressing our opinion to complete strangers on a message board. But I'm still aware enough to distinguish between what I think and what I know. So, I suspect are most on this board.

But to simply be incapable. That's reserved for the worst of us I think.

they're from texas ...

 

[shockedcanadian]

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. Precision leaves no room for error or for surprise results. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms—from which the Earth's elements are made—are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography)



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?


2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident, considering that, by definition, an accident causes "unfortunate" results and a spontaneous event shows lack of planning?


3. As concerns the elements on the Periodic Table, provide a credible explanation for why there was no need for an Intelligent Designer/God who caused them to come into existence, considering that all of the elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that the Periodic Table has been assigned the words "LAW"?[/color]

The precise matter of the universe lends me to believe it is more likely that it was by intelligent design and not random.chaos. Who manufactured these perfect rules, be it law of gravity or specific element construction? Who provided the energy in the universe to fuel everything? Just the human being alone is the most complex system known to man. A subset would be the brain for which we understand the least about of all the organs in the body. if you really consider with some detail and depth the way the brain works, from thought of invention to dreams: it will really twist you into a pretzel.

 

[zaangalewa]

The interesting question is not "intelligent design" in this context. The interesting question is: Which accident was able to produce the universe and why follows it rules? Why this rules - why not other rules? ... ¿And why are we able to imagine other rules at all if we are only a part of this universe here? ...

 

[ding]

It's usually atheists that argue against the mainstream science of the Big Bang because the universe having a beginning freaks them the fuck out. Atheists worship science until the science doesn't suit their purpose, then they shit all over it.

 

[BS Filter]

Einstein believed in Intelligent Design.

 

[Eman623]

1. We have physical evidence from our universe (i.e. CMB and red shift), quantum mechanics, laws of thermodynamics, special relativity and general relativity that tells us that our universe had a beginning and how it began (quantum tunneling event which set off a cascade of paired particle production of nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter).
2. Logically we can assume that if there are other universes, they would have begun the same way as our universe began (multiverse theory).
3. From the matter/energy in our universe we have an example of how energy/matter is structured.
4. We know that the atomic structure of matter is fine tuned for life. That if there were a slight change in the atomic structure of matter, that the universe could be created in exactly the same way but would have no stellar structure and be devoid of life.
5. So the logical thing to do would be to use what we know exists and how we believe it was created which as near as I can tell is what multiverse theory does. In other words, it's logical to assume other universes would be like ours. Why? Because there is no data to assume otherwise.

I don't think you are using logic here. You're just making a bunch of assumptions and declaring them "logical". The fact that you repeatedly say "it's logical to assume X" is the giveaway here. Assumptions are not the goal of logic. Logic starts with assumptions, called "axioms" (eg if a = b, then b = a), and then uses those assumptions to make and prove valid statements.

Anyway, we don't even know if other universes exists, or if they do exist if there are other ways for them to come into existence. We don't know why the properties of our universe are what they are, so there's no reason to assume, "logically" or otherwise, that they would be the same in other universes.

We do know that our universe is tuned for life, because we are alive in this universe. Other universes may not have life, or may have life in other ways. We just don't know.

 

[ding]

I don't think you are using logic here. You're just making a bunch of assumptions and declaring them "logical". The fact that you repeatedly say "it's logical to assume X" is the giveaway here. Assumptions are not the goal of logic. Logic starts with assumptions, called "axioms" (eg if a = b, then b = a), and then uses those assumptions to make and prove valid statements.

Anyway, we don't even know if other universes exists, or if they do exist if there are other ways for them to come into existence. We don't know why the properties of our universe are what they are, so there's no reason to assume, "logically" or otherwise, that they would be the same in other universes.

We do know that our universe is tuned for life, because we are alive in this universe. Other universes may not have life, or may have life in other ways. We just don't know.

It's always logical to use what you know. You would have to have a good reason to use something else. And multverse theory doesn't use something else.

 

[BreezeWood]

Einstein believed in Intelligent Design.

they disavowed any relationship to the desert religions ...

 

[Eman623]

It's always logical to use what you know. You would have to have a good reason to use something else. And multverse theory doesn't use something else.

More assumptions declared as logic.

And multiverse theory does postulate other universes with different rules. For example universes where time is not always moving in the forward direction. Maybe in some universes it goes backwards. Or it extends in both directions like the three physical dimensions in our universe do.

 

[ding]

More assumptions declared as logic.

And multiverse theory does postulate other universes with different rules. For example universes where time is not always moving in the forward direction. Maybe in some universes it goes backwards. Or it extends in both directions like the three physical dimensions in our universes do.

Not sure why anyone would think other universes would be different than ours. That seems illogical to me.

 

[Eman623]

Not sure why anyone would think other universes would be different than ours. That seems illogical to me.

Technically they say the rules could be different. Not that they would be different.

As for what you think seems illogical, that's just another assumption. Which you are entirely entitled to make. But no one else needs to honor that.

 

[ding]

Technically they say the rules could be different. Not that they would be different.

As for what you think seems illogical, that's just another assumption. Which you are entirely entitled to make. But no one else needs to honor that.

I think different rules with no basis for different rules is illogical.

 

[ding]

Technically they say the rules could be different. Not that they would be different.

Would they use something other than general relativity which prescribes how space and time (spacetime) are affected by mass and energy; i.e. how massive objects warp the fabric of spacetime around them, and this curvature dictates how objects move?

 

[Eman623]

Would they use something other than general relativity which prescribes how space and time (spacetime) are affected by mass and energy; i.e. how massive objects warp the fabric of spacetime around them, and this curvature dictates how objects move?

Could they? Maybe. Not sure what it would be. You'd have to ask them.

 

[ding]

Could they? Maybe. Not sure what it would be. You'd have to ask them.

Do you think it would make sense to use something other than general relativity to prescribe how space and time (spacetime) are affected by mass and energy; i.e. how massive objects warp the fabric of spacetime around them, and this curvature dictates how objects move?

I don't. What else could be used?