Posts Tagged ‘Fine-tuning’

English: Universal gravitational constant (G)

English: Universal gravitational constant (G) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The accumulation of evidence should be enough to overcome doubts about individual elements.

First, the LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. Two such finely tuned laws are:

The law of gravity that acts on all matter. Without gravity, stars would break apart and we would have no long-term energy to sustain life.

The strong nuclear force. Without this, the protons in the nucleus of an atom would repel each other and our universe would be made up of nothing more than hydrogen.

Secondly, we see fine tuning in the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS that govern just how much items in the universe are affected by certain laws.Here are just two:

We know that the gravitational constant, which is the value of how much masses will be attracted to one another could sit in a range anywhere within 1x 1040 power, or 1 followed by 40 zeros. But if the force of gravity was increased by one part in a billion, billion, billion, billion, advanced life would be crushed according to Cambridge Royal Society Research professor Martin Rees.[1]

Barrow & Tipler, in their landmark book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, note that if Einstein’s cosmological constant varied in either direction by as little as 1 x 10120, (which is a fraction so small that it would take more zeros to write than there are atoms in the universe) If this were to be changed by even that amount, the universe would expand too fast for galaxies & stars to form.

Thirdly, we see that the INITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MASS AND ENERGY of the Big Bang needed to be just right. The initial conditions of the universe show extremely low entropy. Roger Penrose calculated the chances of this to be 1×1010^(123), a fraction so incredibly small it defies any example. Penrose said, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010^(123).”

Taking all this into account, John Leslie remarks, “Clues heaped upon clues can constitute weighty evidence, despite doubts about each element in the pile.”[2]”

— Lenny Esposito

via Come Reason’s Apologetics Notes: Can Infinite Universes Explain Fine-Tuning?.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric

Cover of "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forc...

Cover via Amazon

A designed universe suited to human life.

Sir Martin Rees, our top Astronomer, wrote the book on the science behind this wonder. Just Six Numbers shows how our basic physical constants need to be dialled in to precisely the right setting for life to have come to exist after the Big Bang. A slight variation from this, and there would be nothing.

And the variation needed for change is slight indeed. Let’s take gravity for instance. Robin Collins tells us that if we change gravity by “one part in ten thousand billion, billion, billion” there would be “no humanly populated world”.

There is no ‘safe zone’, no happy band for which these settings can exist. They’re either right or they’re wrong, and there are billions and billions of other settings that are ‘wrong’.

The dial is set, and is set well for life. Either this is pure cosmic accident, chance, or something set the dial that way.

But when you look deeper into this, as scientists do, it gets harder and harder to believe that is luck. The odds just don’t stack up.

Sir Fred Hoyle, himself an atheist, honestly concludes that, “a common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that super intellect has monkeyed with physics … and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”[1]

Alister McGrath sums up the findings of evidence this way: 

“The phenomenon of fine-tuning is widely conceded; all debates concern its interpretation.”[2]”

via Arguing from the Evidence: The Fine-Tuning Argument | The CVM Blog.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “needing a tuneup” Adams

English: The axes span ~60 order of magnitude (logarithmic scale)! The upper limit is provided by Planck scale, lower limit is from dynamical breaking of chiral symmetry by quantum chromodynamics. The right panel shows a zoom-in of the small box. The lines show the limits of 9 life-permitting criteria: 1. Above this blue line, there is only one stable element, which has the chemistry of helium with no known stable chemical compounds 2. Below this blue line, the only stable element consists of a single particle, which can combine with a positron to produce an element with the chemistry of hydrogen. A handful of chemical reactions are possible, with their most complex product being an analogue of H2 3. Above this green curve, neutrons in nuclei decay, so that hydrogen is the only stable element 4. Below this green curve, protons in nuclei decay, so that any atoms that formed would disintegrate into a cloud of neutrons 5. Above this violet line, deuteron is strongly unstable. Stellar nucleosynthesis would fail 6. Below this light blue curve, isolated protons are unstable, leaving no hydrogen left over from the early universe to power long-lived stars and play crucial role in organic chemistry 7. Below this dark violet curve, the diproton is stable. Protons can fuse to helium-2 via a very fast electromagnetic reaction, rather than the much slower, weak nuclear pp-chain 8. Above this orange line, the production of deuterium in stars absorbs energy rather than releasing it. 9. Below this red line, a proton in a nucleus can capture an orbiting electron and become a neutron. Atoms are unstable 10. The red arrow points the region potentially suitable for complex life (small green region with light green dot)

 

The theist begins with the first five words of the Bible, and sees the universe as a wonderful handiwork of an infinite God. The atheist begins with…anything but the first five words of the Bible. 

Which is more reasonable:

  1. Seeing the intricately fine-tuned universe as evidence of a Designer, or
  2. Seeing the intricately fine-tuned universe as evidence of nothing?

 

“If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

 

— Robert Jastrow, agnostic astronomer, author of God and the Astronomers

via URLhttp://www.alwaysbeready.com/quotations

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

“Naturalism cannot truly even provide a foundation for science itself”

1385293_658330927531417_355358686_nAs explored in this series of essays, the worldview of the Naturalist fails to provide grounding for many important concepts, such as: the origin and existence of our universe, why there is fine-tuning of the cosmos and of biological systems, human consciousness, the ability to trust our reasoning ability, the existence of universal abstract entities such as the laws of logic, the consistency and reproducibility of Nature, or even why things like knowledge have any intrinsic value at all.  Because of this, Naturalism cannot truly even provide a foundation for science itself.  Ultimately the worldview of Naturalism is without objective meaning or hope.  Given this worldview, are there really even any moral \”oughts\” or requirements on us?  What would be the justification for them?  The worldview of the New Atheists provides at best a poor foundation to build upon.

An important point here is not that the Naturalistic worldview cannot give answers to many of the issues mentioned above.  The real issue is \”on what basis\”?  What are they grounded on?  Is there anything that is intrinsic or objective about them?  How are these beliefs justified?  That is the Achilles heel of this kind of worldview.”

via Reasonable Worldviews – Materialistic Naturalism vs. Christian Theism – by Apologist – Newsvine.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric “the unevolved” Adams