It is vitally important to identify who the fine-tuner is. He is your Creator and He is personal.

@Lightbearer616

Ай бұрын

It's also not required.

@adudeontheinternet8658

Ай бұрын

@@Lightbearer616 Are you saying that a personal creator is not required? I'd disagree with that. Design only comes from a personal being. The very nature of design entrails a personal being. Is life designed? One can debate that but one can also debate if the earth is flat. The fact that biological research is filled with the word design is telling.

@refuse2bdcvd324

Ай бұрын

Exactly!

Blessings

Have a good day both of u,

Is there any method of distinguishing between the finely tuned components of the Universe and those things which are merely accidental? For example, there are reasons why the moon is considered essential to life on the Earth there is no reason to imagine that Mercury and Pluto are essential to life. Therefore the number of planets or organization of the planets are accidental attributes rather than intelligently designed. And there are a set of elements that are essential to life but there are 80 additional elements which aren't essential, including natural elements so unstable that they cease to exist before humans could ever arise. Are these mere accidental byproducts of intelligent design? Finally we live in the Milky Way galaxy and it might be argued that 300 billion stars are essential to maintaining a safe environment for the solar system to inhabit, but then there is the Andromeda galaxy and it doesn't seem to have any purpose though it is visible to the naked eye, and beyond that there are trillions of additional galaxies that are invisible to the naked eye and apparently entirely superfluous.

@Papa-dopoulos

Ай бұрын

I get what you’re saying and of course you are right in the sense that there are in fact a whole lot of non-finely-tuned parameters out there, but I would challenge you on how this at all affects the miraculous ness of the fine tuning. For example, if I won the lottery 3 times in 3 years without cheating, does the fact that I played it for ten years beforehand make the 3 years any less demanding of an explanation? Any less amazing? Now, if we had like one “somewhat-finely-tuned” parameter and billions of sloppy ones, then you’ve got a much stronger case (which is why people run to the purely speculative multiverse). But regardless, what we see absolutely demands an explanation.

@wolfiboy11

Ай бұрын

Perhaps the distinction you are looking for is that God is a perfectionist, but by no means a minimalist. What He created, He perfected to an unfathomable degree, but that doesn't require Him to only create a minimalist system where life can flourish and nothing else. Instead we see abundance, beauty, variety, you could even say extravaganza. Also because creating life isn't His only purpose. He wants His character and nature to be revealed and He wants a relationship. So when we study nature - whether in the smallest or the largest scales - we should be more and more in awe of the creator who can speak a universe into existance that is so grand, we cannot begin to comprehend it and full of beautiful stars and galaxies for us to observe and to marvel. After all: The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Psalm 19,1

@andrewdouglas1963

Ай бұрын

Scientists used to think that the majority of DNA was junk. Now they know most of what they thought was junk is actually important. We may not understand now why there are so many planets and galaxies but we may in the future.

@CarlMCole

Ай бұрын

All excellent questions, some of which I have wondered about myself. For example, as you say, what purpose---from a human perspective----could billions of unobservable galaxies have ?

@warrenrae32

Ай бұрын

You’d be suprised how finely tuned the solar system is recent research supports that conclusion. A recent article in Interesting Engineering had an article titled: “Life may not have been possible on Earth without Jupiter New simulations paint a picture of our solar system resembling an ornate clock. “Throw more gears into the mix and it all breaks.” You’d also be suprised how seemingly useless elements are actually useful. For example Radioactive potassium, uranium and thorium are thought to be the three main sources of heat in the Earth's interior,without which we wouldn’t have plate tectonics which recycles the earths crust and makes minerals available to life on earth. The earths core also generates its magnetic field which protects the earth from harmful solar radiation. Add into that the moon which is 400 times closer to the earth than the sun. However it’s diameter is 400 times less than to sun so those two factors create a perfect overlap to cause solar eclipses. Yet the moon is the right distance and size in relation to earth (earths moon is unusual in that its relatively large in relation to the earth about 1/4 size of the earth) to not only have a powerful effect on earths oceans controlling the tides but also the stabilise the earth’s rotation. If it weren’t for the stabilisation effect of the moon the earths rotation would wobble drastically backwards and forwards which would be fatal to life on earth. Now some pass that off as a mere coincidence however in doing so they ignore another vital factor that determines the effect that the moon has on the earth: it’s density. Although the moon is 1/4 size of the earth it only has 1/81th of the density of the earth. Imagine if it had 1/4 (thats 25% of earth’s density)or half Of earth’s density it would be catastrophic as it would not only constantly cause super mega tsunamis but would literally rip the crust off the surface of the earth. So the relation between the moons size , its density and its distance from the earth in relation to the sun get all of those things just right. Yet there is more fine tuning of the earth/moon relationship involved. The moon is kept at its relative distance from the earth due to the earth’s density/gravitational pull. So if the earth’s density were much less then the moon would be further away with less effect on the earth but if earth’s density were stronger then the moon would be closer and its effect no doubt too severe. Yet more amazing still is the effect that the earth’s density and therefore the strength of its gravitational pull is what keeps our just right atmosphere in place. It also creates the right atmospheric pressure Atmospheric pressure is the force per unit area exerted against an object by the air? Gravity pulls that air downward towards the earth and helps create that pressure If the if the atmospheric pressure was too great it wouldn’t permit evaporation to drive the water cycle and we’d have no water on earth If atmospheric pressure were too little it would prevent the destruction of asteroids Between 2000-13? 26 asteroids with energies of 1 to 600 kilotons reached earth's atmosphere. Just for comparison, the Hiroshima bomb with 15 kilotons. Beecause of our thick atmosphere, most of these exploded in the upper atmosphere with no damage to the earth's surface. So the atmosphere is thin enough to not prevent evaporation but thick enough to destroy the vast majority of asteroids before they hit the earth's surface. And this is very important for allowing a habitable planet. What about the earth's gravity related to the atmosphere? Earths gravity must be strong enough to prevent losing crucial gases from the atmosphere like oxygen and nitrogen, but it has be weak enough to allow for the loss of highly flammable light volatile gases that are not really that important for life. How finely tuned is earth’s gravitational pull? Gases are measured in grams per mol It turns out that earths gravity is strong enough to hold onto water vapour at 18 g per mol but not ammonia and methane (poisonous to life)which are 16 and 17 g per mol respectively. As regards your question of what the purpose of all those other galaxies is one thing is for sure there is an incredibly precise balance between the amount of matter in the universe and its expansion rate. It is literally balanced on a razors edge. As the late Stephen Hawking acknowledged if the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100,000 million million it would have a recollapse before it reached its present size on the other hand if it had been great to buy a part in 1 million the universe would’ve expanded to rapidly for stars and planets to form“ Once again it smacks of intelligent design finely tuned by a ‘Fine Tuner’. As Fred Hoyle once elegantly put it: “The universe is a ‘put up job!’”

❤

Is such an insanely delicate setting really necessary for the world to exist as it is?, or is it mathematically necessary for the theory of the big bang and cosmic evolution?

Fine tuning requires intelligent input.

I know u r asking me,

Fine tuning is NOT the idea that we address the short part of the whole...yes...that is impossible....not a "small probability"! When you look at the fine tuned part and only that which is clearly fine tuned, then you forget the statistics as a whole! That IGNORES how statistics works! It works with BOTH what you are saying and then MULTIPLIED by the statustical probability as a WHOLE of the parts! Why would you focus only on the tiny possibility as it's own possibility within only IT'S length? It is part of ALL POSSIBILITIES that are statistically INFINITE in the realm of "uncaused" actions. Materialistic or naturalistic starting points NEVER answer the questions of fine tuning and clear DESIGN. Anyone can pretend that the "inflation field" is real...by using IMAGINARY constructs that violate one or more laws while trying to fit into others! That us not SCIENCE...that is using MYTHOLOGIES like the ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS...Not scientific evidence. The hilarious part of this remains that Materialists clearly accept the IMPOSSIBLE AND MYTHICAL by BLIND IGNORANT FAITH ALONE when we run into the disproven Materialist dogma. They simply start making excuses by focusing on a tiny piece of the entire puzzle that explains none of the other TRILLIONS of statistical DISPROOFS! They handle DNA CODE the exact same way...ignorant of the fact that it CAN'T EXIST without a supergenius designer coder. So they take tiny sequences and match them...which is NOT PROOF of evolution... and say, "look! Evolution!"😂😂😂 When will HONESTY PREVAIL in statistical calculations???

Was too techy for my taste.

Totally unesasarly complicated. Useless!

@davidjanbaz7728

Ай бұрын

LOL 😂

@benrex7775

Ай бұрын

Art is also totally uselessly complicated.

@GreatBehoover

Ай бұрын

And that is why you have that name! No insight. Just irrational thoughtless statements. DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY. That FACT alone has disproven the mythology of naturalism.

@nathanrobbins7668

Ай бұрын

How?

@jon__doe

Ай бұрын

what's useless? don't understand.