Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313

    Why is our universe fine-tuned for life?

    Physicist Brian Green gives a TED talk on cutting edge ideas about the origins of the universe and the multiverse theory.

    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    That was a very well spent 21 minutes! I highly recommend this video.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    The reason why the universe is fine tuned for life is because it has been designed to be such. Nothing can be fine tuned unless deliberate. There are numerous theories as to why the universe is fine tuned for life:

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

    BTW if the universe is fine tuned for life, why is it that we have not found life in other planets in the solar system? Why did the planets exist/created? We know from Genesis 1 that the planets, moon, sun and stars help to tell time and sacred days, but are there other uses from the scientific point of view? Are planets to serve as extra mineral resources for the Earth? For future colonization? For future space explorations to broaden our knowledge of God's creation as the Bible also states that the heavens is also to glorify the glory and power of God.

    God Blessed.
    Last edited by CWH; 12-03-2012 at 04:13 AM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    After watching this video, I noticed in the list of videos underneath the screen of the video a caption for Michio Kaku's video entitled "The Universe in a Nutshell". It is 42 minutes long and is a good refresher of the historical development of Physics beginning with Isaac Newton starting with the first of the four great forces in the Universe; gravity.

    Michio Kaku is now a theoretical physicist having started out as an experimental physicist. I found the whole video an interesting refresher and bringing together the latest understanding of matter with the thousands of subatomic particles that have been discovered. The end result is a theory that he says is "very ugly. but it works". It works up to a point. String theory is supposed to be a theory that unifies everything, yet there remains much to be explained for which physicists will be required in the future for them to find out.

    Isaac Newton's laws of motion are know to work. Einstein's law of relativity only come into their own as the speed of light is approached and yet Kaku says; Einstein's laws break down at the time of the Big Bang. Now we are back at the beginning and it is interesting that Kaku gives Genesis a passing mention, even though he is not a believer in Creation and is a believer in Evolution.

    We are left, at the end, still not knowing the answer to the greatest fundamental question ever; how did matter originate? We are left with the questions to be answered; Did something come from nothing or did matter always exist? Surely matter must have had a beginning and so we come back to the fundamental question. That beginning cannot be explained without God (who has no beginning). Therefore, if there is no God (as some will claim), then there should be no matter. If there is matter, there has to be God. These are the conclusions I will draw from this. Is God the fifth force that Kaku and theoretical physicists like him are trying to find out that bind the for great forces together?

    Despite comments made by Kaku like man descended from Africa 100,000 years ago, which I disagree with, nevertheless, I appreciated the content of this video. The Universe in a Nutshell


    David

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    The reason why the universe is fine tuned for life is because it has been designed to be such. Nothing can be fine tuned unless deliberate. There are numerous theories as to why the universe is fine tuned for life:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
    It is not true that "nothing can be fine tuned unless deliberate." Natural selection "tunes" organisms to fit their environment. This is one of the most elementary facts of evolution.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We are left, at the end, still not knowing the answer to the greatest fundamental question ever; how did matter originate? We are left with the questions to be answered; Did something come from nothing or did matter always exist? Surely matter must have had a beginning and so we come back to the fundamental question. That beginning cannot be explained without God (who has no beginning). Therefore, if there is no God (as some will claim), then there should be no matter. If there is matter, there has to be God. These are the conclusions I will draw from this. Is God the fifth force that Kaku and theoretical physicists like him are trying to find out that bind the for great forces together?

    Despite comments made by Kaku like man descended from Africa 100,000 years ago, which I disagree with, nevertheless, I appreciated the content of this video. The Universe in a Nutshell


    David
    Thanks for sharing the video. If only the day had more hours! The internet is overflowing with more knowledge than anyone could hope to absorb in a hundred lifetimes. Anyone truly interested in educating themselves is limited only by the hours in a day.

    You say that "the answer to the greatest fundamental question ever" is "how did matter originate?". I agree that is a most fundamental and fascinating question, but I word it slightly differently. My question is "why is there something rather than nothing?". I have been asking this question since I was a young child. Meditation upon it would evoke a very strange, indescribable feeling of "mystery." It would make me feel light-headed, as if the universe were about to dissolve. I would imagine Everything (God, the universe, everything) on the right, and literally "Nothing" on the left, and ask myself "why?". I was simply contrasting "Existence" vs. "Non-existence." The concept of "God" was included on the side of "existence" so God could not be used as an explanation of existence.

    The origin of "matter" is not the fundamental question because I have no reason to think that matter is the fundamental essence of existence. Science has a fundamental primitive concept that cannot be reduced to any other concept. It is called "energy." Likewise, metaphysics has a fundamental concept that cannot be reduced to any other concept. It is called "consciousness." It may be that the solution to these twin mysteries is to identify energy with consciousness, and assume consciousness is the "Ground of Being." That seems to be the most satisfying solution.

    How does God answer any questions? If you posit that God has no beginning, why not posit that the Universe of Universes has no beginning? Our universe could be the child of a larger universe. The video above by Brian Greene suggests we might be able to infer the existence of the multiverse. But even if not, it wouldn't matter because we cannot prove the existence of God. Therefore, God does not "explain" anything that could not be explained by other hypotheses.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Thanks for sharing the video. If only the day had more hours! The internet is overflowing with more knowledge than anyone could hope to absorb in a hundred lifetimes. Anyone truly interested in educating themselves is limited only by the hours in a day.

    You say that "the answer to the greatest fundamental question ever" is "how did matter originate?". I agree that is a most fundamental and fascinating question, but I word it slightly differently. My question is "why is there something rather than nothing?". I have been asking this question since I was a young child. Meditation upon it would evoke a very strange, indescribable feeling of "mystery." It would make me feel light-headed, as if the universe were about to dissolve. I would imagine Everything (God, the universe, everything) on the right, and literally "Nothing" on the left, and ask myself "why?". I was simply contrasting "Existence" vs. "Non-existence." The concept of "God" was included on the side of "existence" so God could not be used as an explanation of existence.

    The origin of "matter" is not the fundamental question because I have no reason to think that matter is the fundamental essence of existence. Science has a fundamental primitive concept that cannot be reduced to any other concept. It is called "energy." Likewise, metaphysics has a fundamental concept that cannot be reduced to any other concept. It is called "consciousness." It may be that the solution to these twin mysteries is to identify energy with consciousness, and assume consciousness is the "Ground of Being." That seems to be the most satisfying solution.

    How does God answer any questions? If you posit that God has no beginning, why not posit that the Universe of Universes has no beginning? Our universe could be the child of a larger universe. The video above by Brian Greene suggests we might be able to infer the existence of the multiverse. But even if not, it wouldn't matter because we cannot prove the existence of God. Therefore, God does not "explain" anything that could not be explained by other hypotheses.
    Hello Richard
    I can go with your question; "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Since mass converts to energy then instead of matter (mass) I could have reduced that to energy. That still gives rise to your question as to where did that energy come from? Is there a infinite continuous energy force out of which the Universe has materialized and in which the Universe is contained. We still have the problem of understanding what triggered the conversion and the fact that there appears design instead of randomness and that would have to allow for intelligence.

    Michio Kaku's video briefly talks about the multi-universe and how mutli-universes might join and divide, but whether one or mutli the problem of where the energy comes from remains the same. If our universe is expanding does string theory predict that the expansion will eventually stop and reverse? Michio Kaku's thinking is that the ultimate state of the universe will be a very cold place and all life would die. It is not a good prospect for the universe. With absolutely no hope for the future of the universe, then of what is the point of further theorizing unless it is to find that the Universe will not die. Michio Kaku is lucky to have a job theorizing about something that has no future though he thinks great technological advances are possible.

    One statement made by Kaku was; "by the year 2100 we will have the power of the gods". He made mention of the fact that understanding of DNA will lead to an understanding of the aging process and lead to an extending lifespans The only solution for the survival of mankind (according to Kaku) is to be able to go through a wormhole in space that will lead to another universe in which to survive. Even then, will that universe have a limited a lifespan and so the only way for mankind to survive will be to keep hopping from one universe to another.

    It is all science theory and nothing that can be proved. Proving God might be a simpler exercise. Proof of the existent of God means good news for mankind. We already have the assurance from God that He will make "all things new" and assures mankind of its eternal survival.

    All the best

    David

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard
    I can go with your question; "Why is there something instead of nothing?" Since mass converts to energy then instead of matter (mass) I could have reduced that to energy. That still gives rise to your question as to where did that energy come from? Is there a infinite continuous energy force out of which the Universe has materialized and in which the Universe is contained. We still have the problem of understanding what triggered the conversion and the fact that there appears design instead of randomness and that would have to allow for intelligence.
    Hi David,

    Of course we still have a problem understanding Ultimate Reality. What else would you expect? We are like children. We've only discovered Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and DNA in the last century. And we did it all without any God or Bible. Indeed, it was when we broke free from those concepts that science really began in earnest. The Bible misled us for 2000 years. People believed all sorts of falsehoods about reality when all they had to go on was the Bible. It was science that corrected our misunderstandings.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Michio Kaku's video briefly talks about the multi-universe and how mutli-universes might join and divide, but whether one or mutli the problem of where the energy comes from remains the same. If our universe is expanding does string theory predict that the expansion will eventually stop and reverse? Michio Kaku's thinking is that the ultimate state of the universe will be a very cold place and all life would die. It is not a good prospect for the universe. With absolutely no hope for the future of the universe, then of what is the point of further theorizing unless it is to find that the Universe will not die. Michio Kaku is lucky to have a job theorizing about something that has no future though he thinks great technological advances are possible.
    Why does the "future of the universe" matter? We're all going to die anyway.

    If the ultimate fate of the universe is bleak, then that's the fact of reality. The facts of reality are not true or false depending on whether we like them or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    One statement made by Kaku was; "by the year 2100 we will have the power of the gods". He made mention of the fact that understanding of DNA will lead to an understanding of the aging process and lead to an extending lifespans The only solution for the survival of mankind (according to Kaku) is to be able to go through a wormhole in space that will lead to another universe in which to survive. Even then, will that universe have a limited a lifespan and so the only way for mankind to survive will be to keep hopping from one universe to another.
    Kaku is just speculating from our current state of knowledge, which is very limited. And it's just one man's opinion anyway. And if it is true, it's true.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It is all science theory and nothing that can be proved. Proving God might be a simpler exercise. Proof of the existent of God means good news for mankind. We already have the assurance from God that He will make "all things new" and assures mankind of its eternal survival.
    How can you say such a thing? Science is based on logic, facts, and reality. The Bible is just a pile of ambiguous words that each person interprets differently and which has a 2000 year track record of not helping people understand reality at all.

    There is no proof for God of any kind. Science is supported by a vast array of evidence. We have no "assurance" that God will do anything, and if we use history as an example, then we have every reason to believe he will never do anything since there is no evidence he has never done anything.

    It would be best if we restricted our comments to the facts of reality. It looks rather silly to make outrageous assertions that have no foundation in any facts at all.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is not true that "nothing can be fine tuned unless deliberate." Natural selection "tunes" organisms to fit their environment. This is one of the most elementary facts of evolution.
    Whoa there Richard, not so fast, Natural selection is nothing more than the product of pre-programed information. Let's start at the beginning instead of jumping in after the movie has started. After all, even the movie is a product of its script. Tuning is the topic and Cheow's assertion is an application of human logic. A fine tuned universe suggests the following...

    Tuning implies the existence of a scale,
    Scale implies parameters,
    Parameters imply information,
    Information implies intelligence,
    Intelligence designs the scale and then tunes the instrument to make beautiful music, as opposed to noise. Anybody here care to sit through a 3 hour concert by an amatuer violinist, or live in a universe not designated for life?

    Music by design is why we prefer Beatles and Moody Blues melodies, and occasionally a Road Runner Looney Toon, designated for a chuckle.

    Your Truth Seeking Friend,

    John

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Whoa there Richard, not so fast, Natural selection is nothing more than the product of pre-programed information.
    Hey there John,

    Your comment is unintelligible to me. I have no idea what you mean. No scientist that I have ever read says "Natural selection is nothing more than the product of pre-programed information." What does that even mean? Where did you get that idea? Please explain what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Let's start at the beginning instead of jumping in after the movie has started. After all, even the movie is a product of its script. Tuning is the topic and Cheow's assertion is an application of human logic. A fine tuned universe suggests the following...

    Tuning implies the existence of a scale,
    Scale implies parameters,
    Parameters imply information,
    Information implies intelligence,
    Intelligence designs the scale and then tunes the instrument to make beautiful music, as opposed to noise. Anybody here care to sit through a 3 hour concert by an amatuer violinist, or live in a universe not designated for life?

    Music by design is why we prefer Beatles and Moody Blues melodies, and occasionally a Road Runner Looney Toon, designated for a chuckle.

    Your Truth Seeking Friend,

    John
    Again, your logic makes no sense to me at all. What do you mean when you say "Tuning implies a scale?" What do you mean when you say that a "scale implies parameters?" None of your comments make any sense to me at all.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •