XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.logic, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: alt.atheism, sci.skeptic   
   From: Esque"@gmail.com   
      
   On 3/31/2016 12:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   > On 31/03/2016 3:08 PM, Wm. Esque wrote:   
   >> On 3/28/2016 11:24 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >>> On 28/03/2016 12:44 PM, mur@. wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:25:56 -0400, Dale  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Do we abstract or do we just infer around unknowns or something like   
   >>>>> that?   
   >>>>> Blind Faith?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Do only theists utilize blind faith?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>      Strong atheism is more faith dependant than any other religious   
   >>>> belief.   
   >>>   
   >>> How do you quantify faith dependency?   
   >>  >   
   >> It's obvious, atheist have not falsified the hypothesis that God exist   
   >> and Created the universe and life.   
   >>>   
   >>> Sylvia.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
   > And than theists have not falsified the hypothesis that God does not   
   > exist and did no create the universe and life.   
   > To the extent that these can be quantified at all, they appear to be   
   > equal.   
   >   
   Not exactly. A few years ago I was where you are today. However, in   
   reading about recent discoveries concerning the universe and how it came   
   about, I came to the conclusion that the odds favor the involvement of   
   some super intellect. I am in reference to the Anthropic Principle(AP),   
   first advanced by a colleague of Stephen Hawkins, and Roger Penrose,   
   theoretical physicist Brandon Carter. While it is controversial as to   
   what the A.P. means, only a few scientist deny the reality of these   
   discoveries. These are refereed to as fundamental constants. They have   
   very narrow numerical values about 1% kind of things. Any slight change   
   in any of these values would alter the universe or prevent it from existing.   
   >   
   Examples:   
      
   1)The gravitational constant: which determines strength of gravity. If any   
   less then stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb   
   barrier to start thermonuclear fusion. No stars no sunlight.   
   If the gravity constant were higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel   
   before life could appear and evolve.   
   2)The strong force coupling constant is that which holds particles together   
   in atom's nucleus. If this force were weaker, then multi-proton   
   particles could not hold together and hydrogen would be the only element   
   in the   
   Universe.   
   If the strong force were stronger, elements lighter than iron would   
   be rare. Also radioactive decay would be less, this heats core of Earth.   
   3) The electromagnetic coupling constant determines the strength of   
   electromagnetic force which holds electrons to nucleus. If it were less,   
   then no electrons held in their respective valences. If stronger,   
   electrons will not bond with other atoms; either way, there would be no   
   molecules.   
   All the above constants are critical to the formation of the basic   
   building blocks of life. And, the range of possible values for these   
   constants is very narrow range, only about 1 to 5% for the constants.   
   Beyond this range, life and particularly intelligent life)   
   would be impossible.   
      
    >   
   Many scientist and philosphers turn to multiverses to explain   
   these "fine tuned constants".   
      
   They argue that it's possible to imagine numerous different universes   
   with entirely different kinds of universes each with it's own set of   
   fundamental constants.   
      
   "For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have   
   a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form.   
   Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear   
   fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker   
   universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight. Why don't   
   those Universes exist? Why does our Universe, with its special value   
   exist rather than another? Is there something fundamental to our physics   
   that makes the present values for physical constants expected?   
      
   This dilemma of the extremely narrow range of values for physical   
   constants is allowed for the evolution of conscious creatures, such as   
   ourselves. If the Universe has those properties which allow life to   
   develop within it then there must exists one possible Universe   
   'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining `observers'   
   (theological   
   universe).   
      
   Or is there an Alternative: The multiverse~ Which could explain how our   
   universe 'lucked out". Where there are infinite numbers of universes   
   each with its own set of fundamental constants the chances of at least   
   one universe with the necessary values for intelligent life to exist is   
   a matter of stasitics.   
      
   Other universes which are very different universes (THE MULTIVERSE)is   
   necessary to explain how our universe just happened to have the   
   constants with the necessary values for life and especially intelligent   
   life to exist and evolve: and for the existence of our Universe.   
      
   So, in my mind it comes down to what is the most reasonable, the   
   multivers, or a universe which somehow "knew" we were coming.   
      
   > Sylvia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)