F
Faith1960
Guest
Anyone?
- Status
M
MPat
Guest
I do not really know what exactly are you confused about, but I have tried to add those two posts together and… Perhaps you expect the argument to be damaged by existence of “multiverse” with the same physical constants in each universe? The “fine tuning” argument often considers the constants and that kind of argument is obviously “immune” to such “multiverse”. However, if we consider, let’s say, forming of our galaxy, Sun, Earth, then this version of “fine tuning” argument is weakened by existence of “multiverse”. I’d say that it is this version of argument that the part of the article you cited starting with “Now consider the possible arrangements or states for the observable universe.” is talking about. Especially the part “with a just-right Earth/Moon/Jupiter orbiting a just-right star at the just-right location in a just-right galaxy”.But what is the argument Zweerink is talking about?
Sorry, but I’m confused.
F
Faith1960
Guest
No, I mean what “currently used apologetic” is he talking about that is removed"?
M
MPat
Guest
Ah, so the question is not so much “What argument could be weakened?”, but “Who actually uses that argument?”. Well, that question is much harder… I can’t think of anyone at the moment…
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
That is far from a scientific statement.
Have you seen this other universe through a telescope?
Have we received visitors from this other universe?
Have you been able to deduce the age of this other universe?
Are the laws of physics in this other universe the same as ours?
You see, you know nothing about this other universe.
So how do you know for a scientific fact that it exists?
F
Faith1960
Guest
.That is far from a scientific statement.
Have you seen this other universe through a telescope?
Have we received visitors from this other universe?
Have you been able to deduce the age of this other universe?
Are the laws of physics in this other universe the same as ours?
You see, you know nothing about this other universe.
So how do you know for a scientific fact that it exists?
Your distrust of science doesn’t answer my question. And do you even know what a Level 2 multiverse is?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Using WHAT argument? What argument or apologetics is he talking about?
M
MPat
Guest
This one (“fine tuning”):
- It is unlikely that the universe with [something, for example, physical constants, position of Earth] chosen randomly would [for example, “support life”]. (premise)
- The universe supports life (or something). (premise)
- Therefore, it is unlikely that this universe has [something] chosen randomly. (from 1, 2)
- [Then we go towards existence of Creator.]
):- Do you understand how this argument is supposed to work?
- Do you see where this argument was supposed to have been described in the article you cited?
- Do you agree that it is this same argument (in general)?
- Do you see where the way in which this argument could be weakened by “multiverse” is supposed to be described in the article you cited?
- Do you agree that it is actually such a description?
- Do you understand how this argument is supposed to be weakened by some kind of “multiverse” (as described in the article or in this thread)?
- Do you agree that it is weakened in that way?
- Do you agree that such arguments have been used for apologetics?
F
Faith1960
Guest
All I was,wanting to know is what Zweerink was talking about when he said that “…it just removes one currently used,apologetic argument.” I was just wanting to know what apologetic argument he was talking about.This one (“fine tuning”):
But it has been offered to you already. So, if you are still confused, let’s try a series of questions to find out what exactly are you confused about (as, well, I am confused about that
- It is unlikely that the universe with [something, for example, physical constants, position of Earth] chosen randomly would [for example, “support life”]. (premise)
- The universe supports life (or something). (premise)
- Therefore, it is unlikely that this universe has [something] chosen randomly. (from 1, 2)
- [Then we go towards existence of Creator.]
Now, if I’ll know at which part the problems start, I can try to look what could be done…
- Do you understand how this argument is supposed to work?
- Do you see where this argument was supposed to have been described in the article you cited?
- Do you agree that it is this same argument (in general)?
- Do you see where the way in which this argument could be weakened by “multiverse” is supposed to be described in the article you cited?
- Do you agree that it is actually such a description?
- Do you understand how this argument is supposed to be weakened by some kind of “multiverse” (as described in the article or in this thread)?
- Do you agree that it is weakened in that way?
- Do you agree that such arguments have been used for apologetics?
So he was talking about how people use the argument that the proof for God as our Creator is that the earth has all the qualities needed to support life, but if we live in a multiverse we can’t be sure that the qualities that make earth habitable isn’t also in other places in the multiverse?
P.s.Thanks for your patience.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Sorry…I meant to say a Level 1 multiverse.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
F
Faith1960
Guest
Do you know what a Level 1multiverse is?Your faith in unproven science is touching!
G
Gorgias
Guest
Pretty much.
The ‘fine tuning’ argument points to the uniqueness of earth in the universe as a means of demonstrating that this feature implies a creator and a distinct design. But, if we posit that we only see 1/10,000th of the universe, we can no longer claim uniqueness.
After all, we might still be unique, but we wouldn’t be able to claim it without proof (but, the weakness of the ‘level 1 multiverse’ argument is that we can’t see the remaining (posited) 99.99% of the universe, so we can neither defend or abandon the ‘fine tuning’ argument! It’s a weak rebuttal of fine tuning, since it relies simply on the assertions of scientists who cannot demonstrate the ‘level 1 multiverse’ itself!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
How can I? It’s all science fiction to which you gladly subscribe, evidently. Not sure why.
F
Faith1960
Guest
I don’t know why you seem to be so anti-science. I trust you go to the doctor and follow his/her advice even though what they know and learn from science changes all the time. Yet, you do follow whatever current advice they give, correct?How can I? It’s all science fiction to which you gladly subscribe, evidently. Not sure why.
F
Faith1960
Guest
So that’s the apologetic argument Zweerink was talking about? Ok, I get it now. Thanks.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Do you believe that scientists and cosmologists can see our entire universe?How can I? It’s all science fiction to which you gladly subscribe, evidently. Not sure why.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
How does criticism of science fiction scenarios become criticism of science?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
No.
The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
I believe the Big Bang happened. That is hinted at in the Bible.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”
As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
F
Faith1960
Guest
You need to earn what a Level 1 multiverse is.No.
The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
I believe the Big Bang happened. That is hinted at in the Bible.
Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.
“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”
As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
- Status