Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you have lost sight of what the argument is about. Constants is about -surely - these basic physical laws that (it is argued) must be thought up by a creator.
The mental processes we go through in finding out about these things is irrelevant If we get a valid discovery in the end the mental process of thinking means no more than it taking thousands of years to find out that the earth is not the centre of the solar -system.
If on the other hand, you are proposing that we can be sure of nothing, then appeal to constants is meaningless, so I credit you at least with not arguing that one.
It seems hard indeed to work out what you are arguing, and I suspect that it is introducing a quite irrelevant argument about consciousness to try to peddle your God -hypothesis yet again.
we are created by the biosphere. And the what created it? your so worried about god thing that doesn't exists you run like a frighten child from the truth of it. Just like that other limited thinking group. what are they called? oh yeah, fundy/milli mentals.
the rest of us are left to clean up the mess dropped all over us from ignorance. Worse than that? we are left to kill our children to protect others from anti-religious socialism. One of the most most dangerous things I know to freedom and liberty.
yeah, we lost sight alright arg. Its definitely the middle of the roader that can live with anybody's short sightedness.
foreigners invaded forums to dismantle reason. If it was about reason arg, admitting that we are in a system best describe as "life' and teaching the religious that's what they are feeling would be easy. But its not about truth and liberty for all people. is it?
this deny any reason has a foul stench. reaches far past just a no god thing. it reaches to destroy freedom.
Try this, Arq. The constants we measure are a function of the time and limiting functional processes that FORM the consciousness we use to measure them, NOT something inherent in what is being measured.
I suspect that we are talking about different things. The Costants I refer to are those basics (numerical, usually) of the physical universe and physical laws that are supposed to show that som being had to have decided what they would be.
I cannot recall any connection with consciousness itself or the way we use our mids to find out what these constants are.
I'll try to post something about 'argument from constants' and you may show how what you are trying to argue relates to 'constants'.
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
The term “Big Bang” conjures images of an explosion, and usually when we think of an explosion we imagine a highly chaotic, stochastic event that destroys any order that is present rather than creating or preserving order. The Big Bang was not that kind of an “explosion.” It’s much better understood as a “finely tuned expansion event,” where all the matter and energy in the universe were expanding from an unimaginably high energy state. However, matching that energy was control and guidance through natural laws that were designed to produce a habitable universe, a home for life.
Consider some of the finely tuned factors that make our universe possible:
If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.
If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe.
If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.
If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and heavy elements would not be produced.
The finely tuned laws and constants of the universe are an example of specified complexity in nature. They are complex in that their values and settings are highly unlikely. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life.
The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:
Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)
The last item in the list — the initial entropy of the universe — shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics Charles Townes stated:
Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/id...-the-universe/
I'm not going to argue these right now. But the argument from "Constants" (Fine tuning) is what I mean by argument from Constants in Creationism.
I have never seen 'consciousness' or the methods of juman thinking coming into this argument.
So, Mysic, just what are you on about -ather that trying to wrench the topic into peddling your hypothesis yet again?
P.s I'm not sure whether I can quote from it, but anyone wanting to see a rebuttal of some of the arguments from Constants (Fine tuning)
can read this. https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room...uned-universe/
Of course, this is really not much help to the cause of Christianity as the argument there is not whether the universe seems to have been created, but whether the Bible is reliable. And the argument very often comes down to genesis -literalism . I find consideration of the NT more relevant, but Genesis vs Evilooshun is much more the Hot Topic of debate.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-23-2018 at 02:15 AM..
Yes, you ARE talking about two different things: Mystic is talking about the physical constants and you are talking about the conclusion some people jump to because of the presence of those constants.
Yes, you ARE talking about two different things: Mystic is talking about the physical constants and you are talking about the conclusion some people jump to because of the presence of those constants.
Yes, you ARE talking about two different things: Mystic is talking about the physical constants and you are talking about the conclusion some people jump to because of the presence of those constants.
You are referring to the scientific concensus as 'jumping to conclusions?" Pray tell, either of you, where you will go for a scientifically credited view of constants and whether they are evidence of a Designing God or not.
And let me go back to what Mystic actually posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The constants are the result of our unique capability to measure and thereby quantify aspects of our reality. Our consciousness takes quantum time to form into the "instantaneous" awareness we use to measure anything. That quantum time is why the constants exist in our measurements.
and that was in response to the previous exchange with Jonsey:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
There is nothing in the laws of physics requiring the constants to be what they are, if there was no freedom there would be no implied design."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
On the other hand, what the constants turned out to be is what they are. If they had turned out to be something else, they would be that, too and probably presented as evidence of Design.
Please, either of you, explain what possible relevance Mystic's post has to that, other than perhaps to suggest that we may be misinterpreting constants of various kinds, in which case, they are useless as evidence of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Try this, Arq. The constants we measure are a function of the time and limiting functional processes that FORM the consciousness we use to measure them, NOT something inherent in what is being measured.
And is that the scientific concensus about the reliably recurring actualities that we use various conventional labels to measure, (and, insofar as we can cross check and verify such, we seem to get them right) and which (using the argument that without them we would not be here) are used as evidence of God -design, or is that just a conclusion to which you have jumped?
Last edited by mensaguy; 01-24-2018 at 06:16 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote
Let's just read what you SAID you were talking about: "I suspect that we are talking about different things. The Costants I refer to are those basics (numerical, usually) of the physical universe and physical laws that are supposed to show that som being had to have decided what they would be. "
Now are you talking about the constants themselves, or are you talking about the fact that SOME people claim they prove a conscious choice?
Modern science is the product of the superior human mind
Especially the European
Because modern science was created in countries that carry democratic ideas and I believe that Christianity was an important factor in the development of modern science
And because these systems have freedom of expression, freedom of action and thought
The trend is that some trends believe that the world has not been created by one individual but that it has evolved spontaneously, orderly and orderly
That is, they deny that there is a Creator as provided by the ancient and modern religions
But it can be proved that those theories lead to the recognition that the Creator exists
The following hypothesis is advanced
That is due to the evolution of races
And over millions of years
There is a boom in one species
That boom was so great that it created a dominant entity in evolution
This possibility is permissible according to the theory of automatic evolution as well as the theory of random evolution
The creature became creative and dominant in other varieties
This is what we call the Creator or it may be God or any name called in other languages
That's why I think
Science is able to prove that religions are mistakes and that there are legends
But he will not be able to deny that the Creator exists
Even according to the theory of evolution in all its negative and positive prospects
Yes, evolution leads to the emergence of superior beings in her mind
As was Einstein and the inventor of electricity
And other scholars
But even Einstein was doomed in the equation of life and death
Because he could not get rid of them
He gave science to mankind but he could not get rid of his destiny
On the ground
This is also proof that man controls some aspects of life but there
There were issues he could no
control
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
