*Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe*
"Parameters of Max Deviation"

Ratio of Electrons to Protons - 1 part in 10 to the 37th
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity - 1 part in 10 to the 40th
Expansion Rate of Universe -- 1 part in 10 to the 55th
Mass of Universe -- 1 part in 10 to the 59th
Cosmological Constant -- 1 part in 10 to the 120th

These numbers represent the maximum 'deviation' from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

"One part in 10 to the 37th" is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billion of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 10 to the 37th (thats 10 followed by 37 zero's)

(Article here -- God & 'Science' site)

there is also some interesting reads to the right of the webpage...

quote:

---

Evidence suggests to over 40% of 'scientist' that such a fine balance can only leave one suggesting there is a creator

---

quote:

---

For example, recent supernova evidence has shown that the universe probably possesses a cosmological constant - a universal "repelling" force that accelerates the stretching of space as objects become further apart from each other. In order for the universe to contain stars and planets, this constant must be fine tuned to a level of a part in 10 to the 120th. Such an extreme level of design is almost incomprehensible. In my discussion with atheists, several have told me that they are comfortable with the idea that such levels of fine-tuning could have occurred by chance in our single universe. Such a proposal is completely illogical, and, in fact, requires more blind faith than to believe that God designed the universe. In fact, in order to be a logic-based atheist (as opposed to a faith-based one), you must believe in the multi-universe theory. Not only that, but you must believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Don't believe me? Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an infinity of other universes

Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger multiverse each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves.

Luck has no place in science, since all events must be probable (on the basis of all possible events) in order to actually occur.

---

Say there are 3 guys and they are told to look and an object, and two of the guys see an apple but only one guy sees an orange, then by the majority is must be an apple. But science goes even further and it is thru experiment that facts of preception are laid. Science attempts to replicate our understanding of things using experiment and the facts gathered by a majority. It really does not say that the guy or people who see the orange are wrong but it just proves they are in the minority. Experiment would have to be set in motion if the guys seeing the orange were to prove they are correct to the majority.

Science has some pretty strong foundations and it is really just another quest for 'who we are' the same as religion or philosophy, but science relies on hard evidence of the said preceptions. I am personally attracted to all three of them, but science does differ from the other two methods.

Right now it seems only 40% of scientist acknowledge the exsistence of a creator (which is very metaphysical and not scientific if you think about it), but scientist are trying to disect this using hard evidence as i posted in the links and posts above. But also the other 60% of the scientist who are uncertain are not necessarily cosmologist but are in different fields of science like biology and chemistry.

This is another "proof" by insisting that complexity implies a personality designing it - bad science.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by srprozak:
Yeah. Read the Rig Veda.

This is another "proof" by insisting that complexity implies a personality designing it - bad science.

---

State you wording of the concept then sir...

Where is your proof, the hard evidence? or are you running on blind-faith just like christians are supposed to be doing. This topic started with the title "scientific proof" Everything i wrote above may have came from books or passed down word of mouth but it is atleast my jumbled version of it. If you can do the same that'll be cool, but i am sure you are more content on seeing how much more you can become the "Master Troll" that you think you are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by srprozak:

Ad hominem - I stopped reading there. HAND

---

What did you expect ? mabye you should have chose a different username and lost the link in your sig.

Reading one or two pages at your site where you boast about these illusions of trolling as a skill.

Plain and simple... you cant touch this topic, your mind has stopped at satanism and aryanism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatross:
What did you expect ? mabye you should have chose a different username and lost the link in your sig.

---

Nope - I'm proud of who I am and what I've created, and I don't let bullies tell me what to do.

Speaking of trolling, did you realize that you trolled your own topic? All of my contributions have been legitimate, but you're getting us derailed here.

Philosophy is brilliant in that it is the only science to embrace a theory of the whole, specifically metaphysics. Speaking on that level, it seems to me that an argument for a Creator via complexity measurement is destined to fail as much as an argument against a Creator via randomness.

Which leads us to the question: what, then, would be a winning argument for a Creator? I'd suggest we define "Creator" more thoroughly: a personality, a system of order, a single entity, what?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by srprozak:
All of my contributions have been legitimate.

---

What contributions ?

quote:

---

Speaking of trolling, did you realize that you trolled your own topic?

---

ahh yes, another thing you guys boast about on your site... you do realize that is just an escape right ? an easy to bail out... hardly worthy !

I am not worried in the least about derailing my topic here, mabye it was designed to prove a point that you have no argument on a logical basis.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatross:
I am not worried in the least about derailing my topic here, mabye it was designed to prove a point that you have no argument on a logical basis.

---

How would it accomplish that, since it does not even attempt logical argument?

--------------------

--------------------

If it stayed in the TM section, I would have no issues with him posting here, but his trolling methods extend to all areas of the forums.

To engage in a worthwhile discussion or debate, there has to be a certain level of respect for your opponent (whether or not you agree with their views), does there not? I am not trying to be sarcastic here, but more or less wondering out-loud how allowing Prozak to once again troll VVF is of any value?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by hex:
I think people should be banned based on current deeds rather than the past.

---

Well, this is apparently where we differ from one another here... If someone shits on your floor, do you continue to allow him into your house? Well, this isn't my house, so to speak, but it does belong to the contributing Voivodfans and ultimately Warcorpse to make these sort of calls. I stand by my opinion, but respect however you all wish to handle this kind of stuff. Nuff said.

--------------------

"Ya know what *I* hate???"

--------------------

I think this is just a annual pilgrimage for him...

--------------------

quote:

---

I think people should be banned based on current deeds rather than the past.

---

You do realize that is the prefered "religious" method.. aye?

Anus site and bans people for non-conformance to their train of thought, or if you begin to shatter their walls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mezcalhead:
Is this not the person who wrote Chuck Shuldiner's mother immediately after her son's death accusing Chuck of all sorts of stupid things.........an act imo which was beyond cruel and unusual. This is why I made the coments I did. Unless I got my information wrong...if this was the person who did this....I have absolutely no time for.

---

Quit acting like he's been the unfortunate victim.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hex:
what exactly do you mean by "religious"?

---

I am always trying to play George Carlin but it never works right... I was just joking around. But on a more serious note, The bible is simply a 'law' book. I dont understand why alot of people shoot down the bible and religion when quite simply it teaches children moral principals. Where would we have gotten these laws and train of thought if it were not for the bible? surely the bible teaches love also, teaches love so one can love ones-self and in turn show respect and love to others. Mabye the catholic church never wanted the earth to orbit the sun but instead wanted humans to remain a centered on self people so humans would not lose these values. It is only when people take it too far or past the basics in the bible/koran/ect, that they end up like david koresh and waco TX.

Like i stated... i am not some bigtime religious fanatic, but i can understand where they are coming from and the bibles place in our society. I wont dis-respect jesus freaks or bible thumpers, certain things just have their place in the world otherwise we may be a worse off species not having these laws passed down... i mean they had to come from somewhere. Try to conduct a quick thought experiment in the mind, and evolve the human race 'without' religious law, remove it all togeather, what then would humans have come to for a basis of law? "Harm Reductionism" Shit we prolly would'nt even be here by now.

quote:

---

yuri also banned people because he thought they're a "threat" to "his" community, are we supposed to model our methods after anus and yuri?

---

No not at all... but i think that is where this site differs. Democracy - Freedom of Speech & the basics of 'law' reign here, there is no Dictatorship!. But the layout of this land/site is a little different, complete with 'elected' moderators and such.

Yuri and the folks at Anus site, really have no right to call people jesus freaks or that people live in JezuzLand based on just where they live. Just like in the Soviet Union where they remained closed behind the iron curtain for the longest time, the soivet's atheism only showed their lack of knowledge of history for closing themselves off to it. And to top it off, Yuri quite hurt my feelings for showing his ignorance to the fact.

I think the longer you let something like this drag out the worse it reflects on the site but whatever...

--------------------

I would also refrain from donating this much energy to whether he's here or not - if he is here to cause the usual flare up of irrelevant posts he's done a pretty good job already while barely raising more than two sentences per post.

I am as much against what he stands for as the majority of us - and that hasn't changed, and I know I've been involved with some pretty big flaming sessions with srp and others from anus. But I'm not going to request he is banned just because he has turned up on his annual pilgrimage to vvf. I think we should leave that to Yuri and the censor freaks at anus, people who have little capacity for lateral thought.

I think that's enough of debating about srp...he isn't worth having topics derailed.

--------------------

--------------------