Fine-tuning of the Universe for life

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Someone said that the fine-tuning argument is like a puddle saying to itself that the ground is perfectly shaped to contain it.

When I look at the big picture, I see that we have not yet encountered life outside our planet, and the life on the planet has had to earn its (temporary) existence in a struggle with nature. Still many parts of the gl ...[text shortened]... ow likely each type of possible Universe is. To say we don't have that yet is an understatement.

Someone said that the fine-tuning argument is like a puddle saying to itself that the ground is perfectly shaped to contain it.

When I look at the big picture, I see that we have not yet encountered life outside our planet, and the life on the planet has had to earn its (temporary) existence in a struggle with nature. Still many parts of the globe are not habitable.

I think we must beware of bedazzlement with numbers on things like this. It's easy to say, "oh, if factor X was off by 0.0001%, there would never be life!" - but what was the risk of it being off by that much? Do you know? Does any of us know?

" Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan." (my emphasis)

Originally posted by sonship
Go straighten Arno Penzias out about his misplaced bedazzlement.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would love to, but he isn't here to defend himself is he.
So once again, this is nothing more than an attempt by you, to avoid defending your argument.

And once again, I must point out that if Arno Penzias thought he had a valid scientific argument, he would have published a scientific paper on it. He did not do so. Why do you think that is?

We all have felt the force of gravity. Its pretty strong.

If the force of gravity were altered by a little bit our sun would not exist, and neither would we.

By how much would the force of gravity need to be altered to make this drastic life prohibiting result ?

An of adjustment of 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 of a percent upon gravitational force would make the life prohibiting result. Yes, I made sure I counted to exactly 37 zeros and a 1.

[ From a personal correspondence between Frank Turek with Jeffrey A. Zweerink, research physicist at UCLA, October 23, 2003 ]

Is it a coincidence that the force of gravity is so calibrated ?
I don't think so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would love to, but he isn't here to defend himself is he.
So once again, this is nothing more than an attempt by you, to avoid defending your argument.

And once again, I must point out that if Arno Penzias thought he had a valid scientific argument, he would have published a scientific paper on it. He did not do so. Why do you think that is?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why should anyone publish a scientific paper on it when this is common knowledge among most scientists? All sonship is doing is informing the ignorant on this forum about it.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Someone said that the fine-tuning argument is like a puddle saying to itself that the ground is perfectly shaped to contain it.

When I look at the big picture, I see that we have not yet encountered life outside our planet, and the life on the planet has had to earn its (temporary) existence in a struggle with nature. Still many parts of the globe ...[text shortened]... ely balanced" to support life in this universe.

Straighten him out and tell us what he said.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I asked Arno about the possible range of tuning values and he got rather flustered. With a confused look on his face, he fumbled around in his pockets a bit. Finally, after a minute or two, he asked, "Who prompted you to ask that question?"

"A guy named Jay on an internet forum."

He mopped the sweat from his brow, with relief, and replied, "Ask him."

Back to you.

You guys cannot disqualify every commenter on this matter just because he or she reflects something other than a knee jerk new atheist "Don't Let a Divine Foot in the Door" skeptical retort.

So we want to disqualify Arno Pensias from making a comment, do we?

Originally posted by sonship
1.) no one asked you to

Originally posted by sonship
We all have felt the force of gravity. Its pretty strong.

Robert Jastrow Founder of Goddard Institute of Space Studies comments on the attitude of some scientists when their core convictions about things is challenged. (The point I make is not about the beginning of the universe but about the attitude of some, less than purely objective scientists).

" Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning. But astronomers are curiously upset. Their reaction provided interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind; supposedly a very objective mind. When evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith with our profession, it turns out that the scientist behaves like the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated. We pretend the conflict does not exist. Or we paper over it with meaningless phrases."

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes they did! It was you ... 2 posts previous.
Alzheimer's?

Originally posted by sonship
You guys cannot disqualify every commenter on this matter just because he or she reflects something other than a knee jerk new atheist "Don't Let a Divine Foot in the Door" skeptical retort.

So we want to disqualify Arno Pensias from making a comment, do we?

Originally posted by sonship
1. I did not ask twhitehorse or whatever his tag is.

2. And if you were the pristine humanist you would like to think you are you would not make light of anyone with Alzheimer's disease.

3. I wonder if you tease your kids with ADD. You're suppose to be the atheist on moral high ground full of empathy for his fellow man.

4. But for the record. I did not ASK anyone except, let me see, it was SwissGambit I believe.