frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Fallacies in Fine Tuning, there is no necessity for a Christian God.

Debate Information

Firstly, before starting I would like to applaude my opponent for accepting this debate. Hopefully he isn't some brainwashed and will actually use some good points. Just don't cuss or insult me, and this will be a stimulating debate.

Background info: I am currently studying Theoretical Physics at uni, so I will use Physics mainly as a way to defend my position. Also, I'm new to this website, so please have some patience if I need some prompting when trying to open new rounds etc...

Here is my argument, or better, here is my proof that all arguments showing that the Christian God is necessary for the universe to exist are erroneous.

Firstly, most Christians use the "Fine Tuning argument" as an excuse to prove that God must exist. For those of you who don't know what the fine tuning argument is, it states that if the parameters of the universe at its beginning were different by a minimal margin (along the lines of billionths of percent), then the universe would not have been hospitable. This is quite similar to chaos theory: a small change in the initial state of a system has great effects in the state of the system later in time. Watch this yt video for some extra background if needed

There are various counter arguments, which all are supported by hundreds of papers (which, for the sake of you, I have chosen to be open access so that you may view them as well). I will use three:

1) The whole reasoning that changing the universal parameters by a "very small amount" would make the universe hostile to human existence is , in truth false. These universal parameters can be changed simultaneously. Just read this article: https://arxiv.org...

Not only that, the four fundamental forces were actually UNIFIED at the beginning of the big bang, and split up due to assymetry... (according to the standard model, also this unification was shown for the electromagnetic and weak nuclear force, still a very undiscovered area of physics, very exciting!)

I also have to point out that there are countless other parameters which, for someone who hasn't had a rigorous background in physics (i'm not talking about you), may seem fine tuned, but actually aren't.

For example, consider the Rate of Expansion of the universe and the cosmological constant (consider it as the energy density of a vacuum). Theists believe that it was tuned to 1 part in 10^60. Cosmologists believed this as well, before EFE came (Einstein Field Equations). Using GR, they found out that the probability is 1. Not 1%, 1 out of 1. This can be easily seen observing a typical Galaxy Power Spectrum to Lambda CCD prediction graph. This is at the base of Quantum Loop Cosmology, but let's not get into too many details...

The cosmological constant seems to be fine tuned to 120 orders of magnitude! that's INSANE. Indeed, one has to fine-tune _5;B to a precision of 122 decimal places to cancel the huge vacuum energy density to match the observations.
There is one HUGE fallacy in this logic, it forces vacuum energy density to be constant, IT'S NOT. Another paper, this one I will explain since it is quite difficult: https://arxiv.org...

The vacuum energy density is fundamental in calculating the cosmological constant, and forcing it to be constant is a mistake. WHy? Because yes, vacuum is an eigenstate (pretty much, an eigenstate in QM is a state for which, if an operator acts on it, it only multiplies it by a scalar quantity) of the Hamiltonian Operator, but NOT OF THE ENERGY DENSITY TENSOR!!!! This means that it may fluctuate according to its expectation value, which is HUGE. Even if you fine tuned the cosmological constant to 120 orders, the universe would still expand too quickly because of these fluctuations, the constant would get rid of the expectation value but not its fluctuation... Then the papers goes into some pretty heavy mathematics, but pretty much gives a relation for the effective cosmological constant showing how not fine tuned it is...

So what causes the acceleration of the universe you might ask... quantum fluctuations of the stress energy tensor, the very thing that shows how fine tuning is not needed. I suggest you read the paper, since it is quite difficult to explain and reformulate.

All those "slightly off" arguments for fine tuning are easily proven wrong using EFE, GR AND QFT.

2) The second argument, which is more abstract to understand, but very powerful if understood, is what i call the "What are the odds that my legs would be precisely the right length to reach the floor?" argument. The reason we observe the universe to be habitable is because, well, we exist! If you were to observe the universe, would you expect a universe that can sustain life, or a universe that doesn't sustain life? Obviously the former option! A universe that can't produce observers isn't observable, it makes sense that these parameters allow for human existence. Let's do a quick thought experiment. You have 100 cats, and you have 100 meals for them. 99 of these meals are poisoned, one is normal. After feeding your cats, you realize that 99 of them have died, only one has survived, that's a statistical certainty. The fine tuning argument is analogous to saying "wow look at that cat who survived!". It's just wrong, because 99 other cats have died. Similarly, who knows how many cosmic oscillations our universe has gone through before it was able to produce observables: one, a hundred, maybe a billion? Then out of these billion oscillations, if only one survives (just like in the cat analogy) a fine tuner would say: "wow, what are the odds of the universe being so fine tuned?". 999 999 999 universes weren't hospitable before, the odds are quite low actually XD

3) I will now present the last argument. According to the fine tuning argument, the universe was made perfectly to sustain human life, or any carbon-based life form. But what about other life forms, maybe made of different type of ma
tter? Then isn't this universe non-fine tune for them? What if in another universe these other types of life forms, survive, but we don't. Then the universe is not fine tuned for us, but the other "alien" civilisation will say that it is fine tuned. So who's correct? No one, because as I said in the two earlier points no universe is fine tuned.

To conclude, these are my three points to argue against fine tuning. There is just no neccessity for god to intervene
jesusisGod777
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    Is this the debate?
    KdCuber
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    Yes. 
    jesusisGod777
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    @jesusisGod777

    Is this the debate?

    There ain’t no fooling you is there?
    PlaffelvohfenjesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. 
    jesusisGod777
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    Sorry Kd that comment was for @jesusisGod777 a rather annoying bible thumping clown ........I’ve since corrected 
    jesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    @Dee No problem. He is indeed quite a radical bible preacher XD

    Every time he says: "I'm gonna debate you and beat you"

    and then he forfeits/gives up 
    jesusisGod777
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    He’s a childish Troll who says a lot but most of it is repetitious  nonsense 
    PlaffelvohfenjesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    Indeed...

    I'll be surprised if he even comments something logical in this debate (assuming he doesn't chicken out).
    PlaffelvohfenjesusisGod777
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    I'm making my opening statement and disambiguation so wait.

    Jesus Is Lord.
    KdCuber
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    I will wait patiently (I've got a thesis proposal to write too xD)
    jesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    jesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    PlaffelvohfenjesusisGod777
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    I'm just letting you know your about to get some seriously hurt feelings kid.
    KdCuber
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    @jesusisGod777
     
    Bring it on XD
    Besides although I am technically a minor (i'm 17), please address me as KD. 
    I read that you have a masters, may I know in what subject (just interested, I have finished my MSc too, just wanted to know)
    jesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    You know, when you say you're going to beat my and proceed to do absolutely nothing in the next 20 minutes, it kinda raises a question. 


    Are you having trouble? I can help you if you want. 
    jesusisGod777Plaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    In my opening statement, I recognize as a first-time occurrence on this site, that my opponent has challenged me and is participating in a formal debate.Since this is a formal debate, it is mentioned, that the debate is primarily a logical argument.

    Therefore,Each of the debate questions shall be evaluated according to the standards of whether or not God is a logical necessity.

    1.)Evaluation of my opponents argument type and disambiguation of the argument: 

    1.The opponents opening remarks are presented primarily as a logical argument, not a factual argument.

    2.The argument posted is itself, obviously not   clearlyunderstood by the poster as the assertion and claim of the debate is implied not stated. 

    The posters claim and disambiguation of the claim:


    The poster suggests

    1. That there are no constants 

    2.  That because there are no constants, such determines that nothing is based on intention , or intelligence, as they are not fine tuned and if they are not fine-tuned, they are not intelligent calculations but random products and processes. The opponent has  disregarded  three considerations in his opening statement.

    The disregarded considerations:

    1.That the phenominon of physical laws can not exceed, Fundamental physical laws or principles, which never exceed a range that is contingent for producing life-favorable conditions.

    2.That fluctuations, within the ranges of physical phenominon that effect varying degrees of physical phenominon, do not disprove intelligence, rather they prove dynamic ranges that effectively produce different phenominon.

    3.The opponent tried to charecterize, that all phenominon,
    is charecterized by lack of contingency or constant order to an attributable physical law,
    Which ,  Actually
    Hurts the opponents argument.
    the argument that processes are the result of natural laws that dictate outcomes, determines each outcome is specifically related to the physical properties or phenominon that produce an associated outcome.

     For the sake of a logical argument,  life-friendly
     conditions can be dynamic without asserting a lack of intelligence in design.

    As such it is stated the opponent has already stated a contradiction in the initial assertion that his argument is based on therefore, the contradiction and assertion are discredited in his argument as a logical conclusion of natural physics.

    It is noted in the debate that,  variables are still specific as they are calculations which allow for life, therefore the opponent has made a fallacious claim.

    An example of a violation of naturalness:

    In an effective field theory, any physical quantity gphys, gphys can be represented as the sum of a so-called bare quantity g0g0 and a contribution ΔgΔg from vacuum fluctuations corresponding to energies up to the cut-off ΛΛ:

    gphys=g0+Δg.

    The bare quantity g0g0 can be regarded as a black box that sums up effects associated with energies beyond the cut-off scale ΛΛ where unknown effects must be taken into account. 

    A prime example of a violation of naturalness occurs in quantum field theories with a spin 00 scalar particle such as the Higgs particle. In this case, the dependence of the squared physical mass on the cut-off ΛΛ is quadratic:

    m2H,phys=m2H,0+Δm2=m2H,0+htΛ2+

    The physical mass of the Higgs particle is empirically known to be mH,phys≈125GeVmH,phys≈125GeV. The dominant contribution to Δm2Δm2, specified as htΛ2htΛ2 in equation , is due to the interaction between the Higgs particle and the heaviest fermion, the top quark, where htht is some parameter that measures the strength of that interaction.

     Given the empirically known properties of the top quark, the factor ht16π2ht16π2 is of order 10−210−2. Due to its quadratic dependence on the cut-off scale ΛΛ the term ht16π2Λ2ht16π2Λ2 is very large if the cut-off scale is large. If the Standard Model is valid up to the Planck scale Λ Planck≈1019GeV ΛPlanck≈1019GeV, the squared bare mass m2H,0mH,02 and the effect of the vacuum fluctuations would have to cancel each other out to about 34 orders of magnitude in order to result in a physical Higgs mass of 125GeV125GeV. There is no known physical reason why the effects collected in the bare mass mHmH should be in such a delicately balance with the effects from the vacuum fluctuations collected in Δm2Δm2.

    Therefore this is a violation of natural possibility.

    Considering natural violations exist within the universe, it is stated that the universe and what exists in the universe therefore, does not have a natural source and is not the result of a natural process or natural processes.

    The argument of contingency:

    1.)Anything that exists has an explanation for it's existence as every cause is related to it's effect.

    Therefore an effect is proportional to it's cause.

    As stated, since there is a natural violations of physical law in case of the higgs particle, the source of the cause is not a natural cause.

    Therefore, the necessity of something's nature, dictates the reality of it's source as unrelated to natural cause and is there by not charecterized as naturally occurring phenomenon.

    Therefore, All contingent things will have causes that are from the same source ,which are equally attributable to the cause of all
    of phenomenon that is not the result of a natural process or cause.

    Opponents initial concession:

    The opponent has already conceded

    1.The universe has a cause for it's existence.

    Therefore, the universes existence is not associated by chance or possibility but cause, and that the cause ultimately exists and effects physical laws.

    Therefore,since
    the opponents opening remarks are presented primarily as a logical argument, not a factual argument.

     And the examination
    of the following questions:

    1. Is God a logical necessity

    While understanding,
    the universes existence is not associated by chance or possibility but cause and that the cause ultimately exists, which is not from a naturally occurring processe,
    Yahwehs existence is a logical necessity.

    The debate covers the assertion that the existence of:

    1.The universe

    Is

    2. The result of a natural cause 

    While considering my opponents argument, that the existence of a natural cause must determine that God does not exist, the opponent has failed as stated with the example of the higgs particle.

    Considering a step further, that  it is not natural for a universe to exist as a result of a natural process, as natural laws do not apply to the whole sum of the universe proportionally,

    the opponents argument is relying on dialetics: the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.

    Therefore, 
    Nature in the opponents argument is Constituted by the probability of natural outcomes resulting from undetermined charecteristics that relate to physical laws or that the laws are not determined.

    Considering that the charecteristics are undetermined in my opponents argument they are not probable.

    My argument:

    The opponent has completely disregarded that

    1.Laws must be compatible with existence , as the cause of existence then must be compatible with existence and nescesarry in such that a cause for the sake of existence is a necessity.

    Therefore, any cause incompatible with existence determines that any inequality of physical laws would therefore be incompatible with existence, without calculations that determine physical laws.

    P(R∣¬D)P(R∣¬D) is very small because life-friendly conditions are improbable if there is no rational reason to assume they are calculated.

    Calculations of physical laws therefore determine, that the physical laws were calculated and such is not possible by a natural process that is not based on fundamental principles of outcome.

    Improbability,is the result of a condition or reason something is improbable.

    Therefore, laws that are not structured are not subject to be compatible with existence and are improbable from occuring in any natural sense.


    Physical properties, laws and constants exist as the result of intentional desighn.

    Physical laws,propertiesand constants can not be rationally expected, as they are rationally observed if life-friendly conditions are improbable in what can be expected from a result that is not based of calculation.

    Response to the opponents statements:

    The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, is fine-tuned for life 

    If gravity had been absent or substantially weaker, galaxies, stars and planets would not have formed 

    Had it been only slightly weaker (and/or electromagnetism slightly stronger), main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements

    The strength of the strong nuclear force, when measured against that of electromagnetism, IS fine-tuned for life

    Fine tuned and calculated.

    Had it been stronger by more than about 50%50%, almost all hydrogen would have been burned in the very early universe

    Had it been weaker by a similar amount, stellar nucleosynthesis would have been much less efficient and few, if any, elements beyond hydrogen would have formed. For the production of appreciable amounts of both carbon and oxygen in stars, even much smaller deviations of the strength of the strong force from its actual value would be fatal 

    Small changes in this difference would drastically affect the stability properties of the proton and neutron, which are bound states of these quarks, or lead to a much simpler and less complex universe where bound states of quarks other than the proton and neutron dominate. Similar effects would occur if the mass of the electron, which is roughly ten times smaller than the mass difference between the down- and up-quark, would be somewhat larger in relation to that difference. Fine-tuning of the lightest quark masses with respect to the strength of the weak force has been found as well

    The strength of the weak force seems to be fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979). If it were weaker by a factor of about 1010, there would have been much more neutrons in the early universe, leading very quickly to the formation of initially deuterium and tritium and soon helium. Long-lived stars such as the sun, which depend on hydrogen that they can burn to helium, would not exist. Further possible consequences of altering the strength of the weak force for the existence of life


    The cosmological constant characterizes the energy densityρVρV of the vacuum, so no one but you knows what your asserting as your claim is absolutely fallacious. On theoretical grounds, one would expect it to be larger than its actual value by an immense number of magnitudes. (Depending on the specific assumptions made, the discrepancy is between 10501050  and1012310123.) However, only values of ρVρV a few order of magnitude larger than the actual value are compatible with the formation of galaxies (Weinberg 1987; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.6; Schellekens 2013: sect. 3).

    the Standard Model of elementary particle physics and the theory of general relativity. The Standard Model accounts for three of the known four fundamental forces of nature—the strong, the weak, and the electromagnetic force—while general relativity accounts for the fourth—gravity. Arguments according to which our universe is fine-tuned for life are aimed at showing that life could not have existed for the vast majority of other forms of the laws of nature, other values of the constants of nature, and other conditions in the very early universe

    The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, IS fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 3; Uzan 2011: sect. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). If gravity had been absent or substantially weaker, galaxies, stars and planets would not have formed in the first place. Had it been only slightly weaker (and/or electromagnetism slightly stronger), main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements (Carr & Rees 1979). If, in contrast, gravity had been slightly stronger, stars would have formed from smaller amounts of material, which would have meant that, inasmuch as still stable, they would have been much smaller and more short-lived (Adams 2008; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.1).

    The strength of the strong nuclear force, when measured against that of electromagnetism, seems fine-tuned for life (Rees 2000: ch. 4; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 4). Had it been stronger by more than about 50%50%, almost all hydrogen would have been burned in the very early universe (MacDonald & Mullan 2009). Had it been weaker by a similar amount, stellar nucleosynthesis would have been much less efficient and few, if any, elements beyond hydrogen would have formed. For the production of appreciable amounts of both carbon and oxygen in stars, even much smaller deviations of the strength of the strong force from its actual value would be fatal (Hoyle et al. 1953; Barrow & Tipler 1986: 252–253; Oberhummer et al. 2000; Barnes 2012: sect. 4.7.2).

    The difference between the masses of the two lightest quarks—the up- and down-quark—ARE fine-tuned for life (Carr & Rees 1979; Hogan 2000: sect. 4; Hogan 2007). Small changes in this difference would drastically affect the stability properties of the proton and neutron, which are bound states of these quarks, or lead to a much simpler and less complex universe where bound states of quarks other than the proton and neutron dominate. Similar effects would occur if the mass of the electron, which is roughly ten times smaller than the mass difference between the down- and up-quark, would be somewhat larger in relation to that difference. Fine-tuning of the lightest quark masses with respect to the strength of the weak force has been found as well (Barr & Khan 2007).

    Therefore, you're general assertion in argument one is fallacious as I state again 
    The global cosmic energy density ρρ in the very early universe is extremely close to its so-called critical value ρcρc. The critical value ρcρc is defined by the transition from negatively curved universes (ρ<ρcρ<ρc) to flat (critical density ρ=ρcρ=ρc) to positively curved (ρ>ρcρ>ρc) universes. Had ρρ not been extremely close to ρcρc in the very early universe, life could not have existed: for slightly larger values, the universe would have recollapsed quickly and time would not have sufficed for stars to evolve; for slightly smaller values, the universe would have expanded so quickly that stars and galaxies would have failed to condense out (Rees 2000: ch. 6; Lewis & Barnes 2016: ch. 5).

    The relative amplitude QQ of density fluctuations in the early universe, known to be roughly 2⋅10−52⋅10−5, seems fine-tuned for life (Tegmark & Rees 1998; Rees 2000: ch. 8). If QQ had been smaller by about one order of magnitude, the universe would have remained essentially structureless since the pull of gravity would not have sufficed to create astronomic structures like galaxies and stars. If, in contrast, QQ had been significantly larger, galaxy-sized structures would have formed early in the history of the universe and soon collapsed into black holes.

    The initial entropy of the universe must have been exceedingly low. According to Penrose, universes “resembling the one in which we live” (2004: 343) populate only one part in 10101231010123 of the available phase space volume.
    It has been claimed that the laws of physics are fine-tuned for life not only with respect to the constants that appear in them but also with respect to their form itself. Three of the four known fundamental forces—gravity, the strong force, and electromagnetism—play key roles in the organisation of complex material systems. A universe in which one of these forces is absent—and the others are present as in our own universe—would most likely not give rise to life, at least not in any form that resembles life as we know it. The fundamental force whose existence is least clearly needed for life is the weak force 

    Biological organisms are fine-tuned for life in the sense that their ability to solve problems of survival and reproduction depends crucially and sensitively on specific details of their behaviour and physiology. For example, many animals rely on their visual apparatus to spot prey, predators, or potential mates. The proper functioning of their visual apparatus, in turn, depends sensitively on physiological details of their eyes and brain.

    Therefore, such organization in the universe Determines God is a logical necessity, specifically the Christian God who is God the Lord God Almighty Jesus Christ the King.

    I'll know by how you respond if you copy and pasted your argument.

    Jesus IS Lord.

    Confess your a sinner and do what it says in Romans 10:9 or perish.

    Jesus Christ the King is Lord.
    KdCuberPlaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    So you've already failed.

    I would suggest to you to concede the debate.

    Jesus is Lord.
    KdCuberPlaffelvohfen
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    Here is part I of my counter argument. 

    “The poster suggests that there are no constants”


    Not at all, most variables do evolve throughout time, which doesn’t work in favour of fine tuning theory. 


    See 

    [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10061  

    [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333426703_Evolution_of_universe_from_Raychaudhuri_equation_for_membranes.


     These all show how the universe is indeed a complex system following main notions of quantum chaos theory. It follows that many variables that allow for life in the present will evolve, making the universe hostile for humans. Indeed, if these constants do vary, then at some point life will not be habitable for us humans anymore. This goes completely against the basic notions of Fine Tuning. 


    Modern Cosmology now has 4 accepted fates of the universe: Big Rip, Big Crunch, Big Freeze, and Big BounceTheory. In short, all of these depend on what the cosmological constant of the universe is. The Big Rip will result in the universe getting torn apart by its accelerating expansion. The Big Crunch, on the other hand, will result in the universe recollapsing backwards into a space-time singularity. The Big Freeze predicts that the universe’s expansion rate will continue perennially. As the distances between stars and planets increases, the universe’s temperatures will decrease tremendously, until all life of conceivable notions is not sustainable. 

    See:

    [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9701131

    [4] https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302506

    [5] https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409264


    The opposition has therefore raised a counter argument to their own claim. 


    Hence, by disproving point 1 point 2 need not to be considered. 


    I will now counter the supposedly “disregarded considerations” I neglected. 



    “That the phenominon of physical laws can not exceed, Fundamental physical laws or principles, which never exceed a range that is contingent for producing life-favorable conditions.”


    Fundamental laws of physics do exceed a range that is contingent for sustain life. We physicist study the universe in its most extreme regions, from black holes, to absolute zero temperature areas. Hence, physical laws aren’t made to sustain life, rather we prefer to analyse and examine extreme cases, where human life IS not supported. 


    Look at any cosmology/astrophysics paper and you will see that we observe situations where life forms similar to our own will not survive. 


    “That fluctuations, within the ranges of physical phenominon that effect varying degrees of physical phenominon, do not disprove intelligence, rather they prove dynamic ranges that effectively produce different phenominon.”


    I believe that the opposition is referring to quantum fluctuations in the eigenstates of the stress energy tensors. These fluctuations do indeed prove that there is no necessity for a Christian God, in as much as they disprove Intelligent design, as explained in the opening argument. 


    “ life-friendly

     conditions can be dynamic without asserting a lack of intelligence in design.” 

    As explained earlier, this is not the case, because in a dynamic universe there will be a point where human life will not be sustainable. We must now ask ourselves: “What creator would create a universe sustainable of life, to then end it with excrutiating pain?”. No omnipotent benevolent creator such as the Christian God would. Hence, a dynamic universe does assert the lack of intelligence in design. 


    “In an effective field theory, any physical quantity gphys, gphys can be represented as the sum of a so-called bare quantity g0g0 and a contribution ΔgΔg from vacuum fluctuations corresponding to energies up to the cut-off ΛΛ:”


    All symbols and variables were not defined, demonstrating poor communication skills and physical maturity from the part of the opposition. Thankfully, I have a very strong backgorund in physics, so I will try to decipher your nonsense. 


     


    jesusisGod777Plaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    Since I've already stated an empirical standard of evidence the moron in this post can STFU.

    I'm already done with this argument.

    I didn't base anything on "quantum" make believe blah blah blah blah blah blah blah .

    Jesus is Lord.

    Who even trys to use their legs as a form of evidence?

    Just plain Dumb.

    I'm not going to respond to any comments. 

    Apparently you haven't realized that when you use a logical argument as a standard for an assertion if your logic is invalidated so is your argument.

    What usually comes next is a fish out of water effect.

    You have no basis for an argument as your entire basis was discredited. Anything you do now only generates a loss of credibility.

    Jesus is Lord.

    I'm going to get a sandwich.


    KdCuberPlaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    And the cause of me getting a sandwich is a stomach.

    Make sure to Ponder why I'm hungry.

    Kids and there stupidity.

    I have the whambulance hotline number, it's 1800 tears-whambulance whambulance .


    KdCuberPlaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    As a last note I'm tired of you people and your grandiose sense of thinking I need to reply to you when you want a reply.

    Seriously if you need to suck on a tit, that doesn't somehow mean I care.
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    You haven't attempted to disprove not even one of my arguments. I have won by forfeit XD
    jesusisGod777Plaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    How do you present a counter argument to an argument that doesn't apply?

    I can tell logic is not something your capable of.

    You obviously have a poor grasp of mathematics.

    Jesus is Lord.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    All symbols are mathematical principles. The fact you don't know them reflects your education.

    LOL.
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  

    After reading the entire section “An example of a violation of naturalness”, we must point out that there is no continuity in the entire proof, and random numbers and sentences were written without purpose. No variable was defined, and the user sohuld have used latex to format the equations professionally.


    The value for the Planck energy is incorrect, it should be 1.221 x 10^19 GeV… There is no way bare mass and effects of vacuum fluctuations can cancel each other because they are completely different physical properties/phenomena respectively. The bare mass is already defined to be codependent on vacuum fluctuations, hence the two can’t cancel each other. 


    “Therefore,since the opponents opening remarks are presented primarily as a logical argument, not a factual argument.”


    not at all. I have presented factual information supported by professional research papers published in prestigious peer-reviewed articles. 


    “Therefore, the universe's existence is not associated by chance or possibility but cause, and that the cause ultimately exists and effects physical laws.”

    Not at all. If the opposition reads the papers presented previously, especially [3], [4], [5] explain how the universe’s existence is mere probability and statistics, and not related to any cause. The universe is dynamic, as explained earlier. Not that true either. Many of these parameters are evolving. Just think about black holes, aren't they literally "annihilating" matter? Or even better, the unified fundamental forces. At the beginning of the big bang, the four forces were unified, but due to assymetry in the dimensionality of the standard model "S(2)xU(1)". 


    Furthermore, even if the universe’s existence were associated by cause, then that still wouldn’t prove that a Christian God exists. There may be other non-related causes, natural causes. There are so many reasons hinting to the fact that a God could not have caused the Universe to exist. 

    -There is no need of a god, the universe may have simplys tarted from a chain reaction of universes collapsing into a space-time

    singularity and then re-expanding due to entropy.

    - Assume the previous point is false. Who created god? Can god exist in a dimension where space and time don't exist?

    - At CERN, physicists were able to create anti-matter using enormous amounts of energy (around 30 Billion kW to create 1 nanogram). How does God get the energy to create the ENTIRE UNIVERSE?

    - Why does God look human? For all we know there may be so many other living species spread throughout the universe, so why does God, which is their creator as well, look coincidentally like us?

    -The Earth isn't 6000 years old, there are literally cave paintings that are 5 times older. Hence the Christian God who created the Earth approx 6000 years ago could not have existed. 


    “Physical laws,propertiesand constants can not be rationally expected, as they are rationally observed if life-friendly conditions are improbable in what can be expected from a result that is not based of calculation.”

    literally makes 0 sense. 


    “Physical properties, laws and constants exist as the result of intentional desighn.”

    Any evidence, simualtions, observed data, published papers to support that? None? Too bad I guess physicist only publish papers that MAKE SENSE. 


    “P(R∣¬D)P(R∣¬D) is very small because life-friendly conditions are improbable if there is no rational reason to assume they are calculated.”

    The opposition hasn’t defined what P(R∣¬D)P(R∣¬D)  is. 


    “Therefore, any cause incompatible with existence determines that any inequality of physical laws would therefore be incompatible with existence, without calculations that determine physical laws.”

    That still doesn’t disprove in any way FIne tuning, and hence the existence of a Christian god. 


    “Therefore, laws that are not structured are not subject to be compatible with existence and are improbable from occuring in any natural sense.”

    Clearly, the oppositino has no idea what physics is. Physcs is the study of what’s around us, if it weren’t compatible with human existence then it wouldn’t be physics. We have modelled everything around us, all phenomena surrounding us, using Physics. Hence, asserting that physical laws are not compatible with existence is a huge fallacy in the opposing argument. 





    “The strength of gravity, when measured against the strength of electromagnetism, is fine-tuned for life” 

    The opposition clearly hasn’t read my opening statement, as i have debunked this whole conception that universal parameters are fine tuned. 


    I will continue by providing once again more scientific evidence hinting towards the fact that the universe is not fine tuned, since the Opposition clearly hasn’t read/understood my opening arguments. In the first paper, we show that the ENTIRE electroweak force can be completely deleted, and the universe would still bear immense similarity to ours, and would definitely support life. Furthermore, these paramteres can all be changed simultaneously. 


    There are countless other parameters that are not fine tuned, and have been debunked. 

    For example, consider the Rate of Expansion of the universe and the cosmological constant (consider it as the energy density of a vacuum). Theists believe that it was tuned to 1 part in 10^60. Cosmologists believed this as well, before EFE came (Einstein Field Equations). Using GR, they found out that the probability is 1. Not 1%, 1 out of 1. This can be easily seen observing a typical Galaxy Power Spectrum to Lambda CCD prediction graph. This is at the base of Quantum Loop Cosmology, but let's not get into too many details... 



    The cosmological constant seems to be fine tuned to 120 orders of magnitude! that's INSANE. Indeed, one has to fine-tune λB to a precision of 122 decimal places to cancel the huge vacuum energy density to match the observations. 

    There is one HUGE fallacy in this logic, it forces vacuum energy density to be constant, IT'S NOT. This was shown in [7]. The vacuum energy density is fundamental in calculating the cosmological constant, and forcing it to be constant is a mistake. WHy? Because yes, vacuum is an eigenstate (pretty much, an eigenstate in QM is a state for which, if an operator acts on it, it only multiplies it by a scalar quantity) of the Hamiltonian Operator, but NOT OF THE ENERGY DENSITY TENSOR!!!! This means that it may fluctuate according to its expectation value, which is HUGE. Even if you fine tuned the cosmological constant to 120 orders, the universe would still expand too quickly because of these fluctuations, the constant would get rid of the expectation value but not its fluctuation... Then the papers goes into some pretty heavy mathematics, but pretty much gives a relation for the effective cosmological constant showing how not fine tuned it is...


    So what causes the acceleration of the universe you might ask... quantum fluctuations of the stress energy tensor, the very thing that shows how fine tuning is not needed. I suggest you read the paper, since it is quite difficult to explain and reformulate. 


    Therefore, your statement "If the parameters were slightly off, NO LIFE OF ANY KIND COULD EXIST!

    " is quite false. All those "slightly off" arguments for fine tuning are easily proven wrong using EFE, GR AND QFT. Those are the exact methods used in the following papers:

    [6]https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027

    [7]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09566.pdf

    [8]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.04336.pdf 

    [9]https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027


    The whole “response to the opponent statements” has therefore been disproven. We’d also like to point out that the sun will not explode in a supernovae as you claimed here: “main sequence stars such as the sun would have been significantly colder and would not explode in supernovae, which are the main source of many heavier elements”. It is also worthy to note that many, if not most of the papers cited by the opposition are decades old, and not reliable. 


    The whole argument that “all parameters in the universe are fine tuned for life” is analogous to saying 2"What are the odds that my legs would be precisely the right length to reach the floor?"

    The reason we observe the universe to be habitable is because, well, we exist! If you were to observe the universe, would you expect a universe that can sustain life, or a universe that doesn't sustain life? Obviously the former option! A universe that can't produce observers isn't observable, it makes sense that these parameters allow for human existence. Let's do a quick thought experiment. You have 100 cats, and you have 100 meals for them. 99 of these meals are poisoned, one is normal. After feeding your cats, you realize that 99 of them have died, only one has survived, that's a statistical certainty. The fine tuning argument is analogous to saying "wow look at that cat who survived!". It's just wrong, because 99 other cats have died. Similarly, who knows how many cosmic oscillations our universe has gone through before it was able to produce observables: one, a hundred, maybe a billion? Then out of these billion oscillations, if only one survives (just like in the cat analogy) a fine tuner would say: "wow, what are the odds of the universe being so fine tuned?". 999 999 999 universes weren't hospitable before, the odds are quite low actually XD Not only,  according to the fine tuning argument, the universe was made perfectly to sustain human life, or any carbon-based life form. But what about other life forms, maybe made of different type of ma

    tter? Then isn't this universe non-fine tune for them? What if in another universe these other types of life forms, survive, but we don't. Then the universe is not fine tuned for us, but the other "alien" civilisation will say that it is fine tuned. So who's correct? No one, because as I said in the two earlier points no universe is fine tuned.


    Hence the only reason we observe the universe to be hospitable is because we exist. Who knows how many cosmic oscillations it has taken for parameters to evolve so that life became sustainable. Furthermore, as expained earlier, these parameters keep evolving, and hence at some point the universe won’t be fine tuned for us anymore. Ergo, the point still stands. Fine tuning is  a hoax, it has been disproven. Scientific evidence to support my claim was presented, and hence the necessity for a Christian God to exist has been debunked. 



    Plaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    I realize mathematical physics must not be a part of your "STRONG" physics background.

    Considering the entire field of physics is based on math how do you not recognize all of the known and commonly used mathematical symbols in physics.

    LOOOOOOOL very "STRONG" background in physics indeed.

    I guess quantum physics explains why you don't understand commonly used mathematical symbols in physics too right?

    LOOOOOOOL

    Like I say to most people who are wicked.

    I have piles of sand. How much do you want to go pound?

    Jesus is Lord.

    The opponent has stated that he does not know commonly used mathematical symbols in physics which means he has no background in physics and therefore can not explain physical phenomenon nor explain mathematical principles associated to physics.

    His initial statements are there by determined absolutely fallacious.

    Jesus is Lord.
    KdCuberPlaffelvohfen
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "All symbols are mathematical principles. The fact you don't know them reflects your education.

    LOL."

    No they're not. Glossaries exist for a reason... Also, since the formatting on this website is bad, there's no way I can read the mathematics you wrote... 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "How do you present a counter argument to an argument that doesn't apply?

    I can tell logic is not something your capable of.

    You obviously have a poor grasp of mathematics.

    Jesus is Lord."

    So I can't counter your argument because your argument doesn't apply?

    Seems like YOU are the one confused. I am the only one who presented reliable papers that were published recently in prestigious peer reviewed papers, providing scientific support to all my claims. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 694 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    "Fallacies in Fine Tuning, there is no necessity for a Christian God."


    The fine tuning of the anti religious mindsets, via their various anti religious messaging is, and has been on full display via the internet, for some time now.

    Being that the anti religious, make it a personal necessity to use the conversation of the Christian God, as their personal pulpit fodder, to help get their anti religious messaging across. 

    Being religious is completely voluntary.

    Just as being anti religious, an Athiest, or Thiest, is completely voluntary.

    Just as Rich Dawkins, being publicly anti religious in a public forum, and getting notoriety for his anti religious Opinion, is completely voluntary, and is grand way to become educated on the Richard Dawkins athiest mindset. 

    Just as being educated by the various Athiests, and Thiests mindsets via the internet, is a grand way to become educated on their mindset as well. 
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    "I realize mathematical physics must not be a part of your "STRONG" physics background.

    Considering the entire field of physics is based on math how do you not recognize all of the known and commonly used mathematical symbols in physics.

    LOOOOOOOL very "STRONG" background in physics indeed.

    I guess quantum physics explains why you don't understand commonly used mathematical symbols in physics too right?

    LOOOOOOOL

    Like I say to most people who are wicked.

    I have piles of sand. How much do you want to go pound?

    Jesus is Lord.

    The opponent has stated that he does not know commonly used mathematical symbols in physics which means he has no background in physics and therefore can not explain physical phenomenon nor explain mathematical principles associated to physics.

    His initial statements are there by determined absolutely fallacious.

    Jesus is Lord."

    Such arrogance... and you still believe yourself to be a religious person? 

    "Considering the entire field of physics is based on math how do you not recognize all of the known and commonly used mathematical symbols in physics."
    Professional scientists always say something along the lines of "let us denote #quantity# with #symbol#", showing how YOUR background in theoreticla and mathematical physics is terrible. 
    Furthermore,  I was still able to decipher your nonsense (i know you just copied random equations from papers, I know you don't understand those equations because they have no continuity between them), and have disproven your argument very simply. For example:
    "m2H,phys=m2H,0+Δm2=m2H,0+htΛ2+"

    Why is there a + sign without an addend? You definitely don't understand those equations.  
    jesusisGod777Plaffelvohfen
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "Seriously if you need to suck on a tit, that doesn't somehow mean I care."

    Wow, what a perverted, twisted and DISGUSTING mind. 

    If god existed I am sure he woudn't be happy about the way you treat people who have stronger academic backgrounds with NO respect. 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    Is that why I explained what the equation was?

    Quote:  myself " the dependence of the squared physical mass on the cut-off ΛΛ is quadratic: m2H,phys=m2H,0+Δm2=m2H,0+htΛ2+"

    I've never quoted myself in a debate LOL.

    It's a quadratic formula you dumbass.

    The plus sign exists at the end to denote a positive mean.

    Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean someone else does.

    Morons usually think people are just as as them.

    Jesus is Lord.

    Like I said, you're losing credibility.

    Fish out of water.

    Go throw on some training wheels. You've failed the debate and I have both proven God's existence and satisfied the standard of the debate.

    Pound sand satan.
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    "Is that why I explained what the equation was?

    Quote:  myself " the dependence of the squared physical mass on the cut-off ΛΛ is quadratic: m2H,phys=m2H,0+Δm2=m2H,0+htΛ2+"

    I've never quoted myself in a debate LOL.

    It's a quadratic formula you dumbass.

    The plus sign exists at the end to denote a positive mean.

    Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean someone else does.

    Morons usually think people are just as as them.

    Jesus is Lord.

    Like I said, you're losing credibility.

    Fish out of water.

    Go throw on some training wheels. You've failed the debate and I have both proven God's existence and satisfied the standard of the debate.

    Pound sand satan."

    But what is m2H,phys, m2H,0 and Δm2? 
    Besides that is not a qudratic formula, if anything its a primitive re-derivation using Path integrals... Ever heard of QED fella?
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    delta-v can be either a spatial vector (Δv) or scalar (Δv).

    Jesus is Lord.
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "The plus sign exists at the end to denote a positive mean."
    If anything its Tensor notation.
    jesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    If you are referring to the Theory of Renormalization, then normal scientists usually use m, not g...
    jesusisGod777
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    I want you explain your opening statement in lamens terms so everyone can understand it.

    Let's see how much you understand about your own debate LOL.
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    Still didn't explain what m2H,phys, m2H,0  are, but I think you're referring to Renormalization theory. It isn't really applicable with interactions with quantum fluctuations of the stress tensor eigenstates. That is simply because the term is already included in $\delta_m$ and hence they are not in balance at all. 
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    Summation Convention

    Tensor notation introduces one simple operational rule. It is to automatically sum any index appearing twice from 1 to 3. 

    It's becoming VERY obvious you have no idea what your talking about.

    Jesus is God.


  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    I want you to explain what an index is and then explain your opening statement in lamens terms.

    I want you to walk everyone through your opening statement assuming they do not understand what you said to clarify you understand what you said.

    Jesus is Lord.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "I want you explain your opening statement in lamens terms so everyone can understand it.

    Let's see how much you understand about your own debate LOL."

    I will copy and paste my opening statement, and explaint he theoretical physics parts in laymans terms. 
    Firstly, before starting I would like to applaude my opponent for accepting this debate. Hopefully he isn't some brainwashed and will actually use some good points. Just don't cuss or insult me, and this will be a stimulating debate.


    Here is my argument, or better, here is my proof that all arguments showing that the Christian God is necessary for the universe to exist are erroneous.

    Firstly, most Christians use the "Fine Tuning argument" as an excuse to prove that God must exist. For those of you who don't know what the fine tuning argument is, it states that if the parameters of the universe at its beginning were different by a minimal margin (along the lines of billionths of percent), then the universe would not have been hospitable. This is quite similar to chaos theory: a small change in the initial state of a system has great effects in the state of the system later in time. Watch this yt video for some extra background if needed

    There are various counter arguments, which all are supported by hundreds of papers (which, for the sake of you, I have chosen to be open access so that you may view them as well). I will use three:

    1) The whole reasoning that changing the universal parameters by a "very small amount" would make the universe hostile to human existence is , in truth false. These universal parameters can be changed simultaneously as has been shown in: ://arxiv.org...

    Not only that, the four fundamental forces were actually UNIFIED at the beginning of the big bang, and split up due to assymetry... (according to the standard model, the heavy assymetry, or the unbalance between these force caused them to "break off" so to speak). 

    I also have to point out that there are countless other parameters which, for someone who hasn't had a rigorous background in physics (i'm not talking about you), may seem fine tuned, but actually aren't.

    For example, consider the Rate of Expansion of the universe and the cosmological constant (consider it as the energy density of a vacuum, such as space). Theists believe that it was tuned to 1 part in 10^60. Cosmologists believed this as well, before EFE came (Einstein Field Equations). Using GR, they found out that the probability is 1. Not 1%, 1 out of 1. This can be easily seen observing a typical Galaxy Power Spectrum to Lambda CCD prediction graph. This is at the base of Quantum Loop Cosmology, but let's not get into too many details...

    The cosmological constant seems to be fine tuned to 120 orders of magnitude! that's INSANE. Indeed, one has to fine-tune _5;B to a precision of 122 decimal places to cancel the huge vacuum energy density to match the observations.
    There is one HUGE fallacy in this logic, it forces vacuum energy density to be constant, IT'S NOT. Another paper, this one I will explain since it is quite difficult: https://arxiv.org...

    The vacuum energy density (the energy density function for a vacuum tells us how much energy can be stored per unit volume, and can vary greatly depending on what types of interactions are going on) is fundamental in calculating the cosmological constant, and forcing it to be constant is a mistake. WHy? Because yes, vacuum is an eigenstate (pretty much, an eigenstate in QM is a state for a particle for which, if an operator acts on it, it only multiplies it by a scalar quantity, a number) of the Hamiltonian Operator (the hamiltonian operator tells us the total energy of a system), but NOT OF THE ENERGY DENSITY TENSOR (the energy density tensor is a generalisation of the energy density function in spatial coordinates, so that every point in space can be specified by an element of the tensor). This means that it may fluctuate according to its expectation value (the expectation value in QM are usually very large due to the so called wave-particle duality), which is HUGE. Even if you fine tuned the cosmological constant to 120 orders, the universe would still expand too quickly because of these fluctuations, the constant would get rid of the expectation value but not its fluctuation...  and the universe would come to a horrific end. Then the papers goes into some pretty heavy mathematics, but pretty much gives a relation for the effective cosmological constant showing how not fine tuned it is. 

    So what causes the acceleration of the universe you might ask... quantum fluctuations of the stress energy tensor, the very thing that shows how fine tuning is not needed. 

    All those "slightly off" arguments for fine tuning are easily proven wrong using EFE, GR AND QFT.

    For example, consider the Rate of Expansion of the universe and the cosmological constant (consider it as the energy density of a vacuum, it tells us more or less how the universe will end by analysing and projecting future values of energy in the vacuum of space. If these values decrease, then we know that the universe will freeze. If they increase, the universe will "rip" or "crunch", if they oscillate we have the so called "Big Bounce"). Theists believe that it was tuned to 1 part in 10^60. Cosmologists believed this as well, before EFE came (Einstein Field Equations). Using GR, they found out that the probability is 1. Not 1%, 1 out of 1. This can be easily seen observing a typical Galaxy Power Spectrum to Lambda CCD prediction graph. This is at the base of Quantum Loop Cosmology, but let's not get into too many details... 



    The cosmological constant seems to be fine tuned to 120 orders of magnitude! that's INSANE. Indeed, one has to fine-tune λB to a precision of 122 decimal places to cancel the huge vacuum energy density to match the observations. 

    There is one HUGE fallacy in this logic, it forces vacuum energy density to be constant, IT'S NOT. This was shown in [7]. The vacuum energy density is fundamental in calculating the cosmological constant, and forcing it to be constant is a mistake. WHy? Because yes, vacuum is an eigenstate (pretty much, an eigenstate in QM is a state for which, if an operator acts on it, it only multiplies it by a scalar quantity) of the Hamiltonian Operator, but NOT OF THE ENERGY DENSITY TENSOR!!!! This means that it may fluctuate according to its expectation value, which is HUGE. Even if you fine tuned the cosmological constant to 120 orders, the universe would still expand too quickly because of these fluctuations, the constant would get rid of the expectation value but not its fluctuation... Then the papers goes into some pretty heavy mathematics, but pretty much gives a relation for the effective cosmological constant showing how not fine tuned it is...


    So what causes the acceleration of the universe you might ask... quantum fluctuations of the stress energy tensor, the very thing that shows how fine tuning is not needed. I suggest you read the paper, since it is quite difficult to explain and reformulate. 


    Therefore, your statement "If the parameters were slightly off, NO LIFE OF ANY KIND COULD EXIST!

    " is quite false. All those "slightly off" arguments for fine tuning are easily proven wrong using EFE, GR AND QFT. Those are the exact methods used in the following papers:

    [6]https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027

    [7]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09566.pdf

    [8]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.04336.pdf 

    [9]https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0604027



    Furthermore, there are other arguments against fine tuning. Why would a god create a universe that will inevitably come to an end, killing all habitable life that should supposedly "praise" him. What benevolent omnipotent God would do that? 

    2) The second argument, which is more abstract to understand, but very powerful if understood, is what i call the "What are the odds that my legs would be precisely the right length to reach the floor?" argument. The reason we observe the universe to be habitable is because, well, we exist! If you were to observe the universe, would you expect a universe that can sustain life, or a universe that doesn't sustain life? Obviously the former option! A universe that can't produce observers isn't observable, it makes sense that these parameters allow for human existence. Let's do a quick thought experiment. You have 100 cats, and you have 100 meals for them. 99 of these meals are poisoned, one is normal. After feeding your cats, you realize that 99 of them have died, only one has survived, that's a statistical certainty. The fine tuning argument is analogous to saying "wow look at that cat who survived!". It's just wrong, because 99 other cats have died. Similarly, who knows how many cosmic oscillations our universe has gone through before it was able to produce observables: one, a hundred, maybe a billion? Then out of these billion oscillations, if only one survives (just like in the cat analogy) a fine tuner would say: "wow, what are the odds of the universe being so fine tuned?". 999 999 999 universes weren't hospitable before, the odds are quite low actually XD

    3) I will now present the last argument. According to the fine tuning argument, the universe was made perfectly to sustain human life, or any carbon-based life form. But what about other life forms, maybe made of different type of ma
    tter? Then isn't this universe non-fine tune for them? What if in another universe these other types of life forms, survive, but we don't. Then the universe is not fine tuned for us, but the other "alien" civilisation will say that it is fine tuned. So who's correct? No one, because as I said in the two earlier points no universe is fine tuned.

    To conclude, these are my three points to argue against fine tuning. There is just no neccessity for god to intervene.

    My opening statement didn't contain many complex arguments nor jargon that any high school graduate wouldn't understand. 
    jesusisGod777
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    The reason I want you to explains opening statement in lamens terms is so people can understand how what your saying is and are able to understand my reply.

    I have no problem explaining my opening statement in lamens terms.

    Jesus IS Lord
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -   edited September 2019
    "I want you to explain what an index is and then explain your opening statement in lamens terms.

    I want you to walk everyone through your opening statement assuming they do not understand what you said to clarify you understand what you said."
    Tensor notation introduces one simple operational rule. It is to automatically sum any index appearing twice from 1 to 3. 

    It's becoming VERY obvious you have no idea what your talking about.


    Index notation, also called "einstein summation convention", is a mathematical "shortcut" used to omit any summation signs (the $\sigma$ sign in LaTeX). 
    There are some rules to tensor notation or summation notation. Consider an arbitrary second rank tensor $T_{ij}$. Then, suppose we multiply this by the kronecker delta symbol $\delta_{ik}$, getting $T_{ij}\delta_{ik}$. In summation notation, this would be writte as:
    \begin{equation}
    \sum_{i = 1} ^ 3 T_{ij} \delta{ik} = T_{1j}\delta_{1k} +  T_{2j}\delta_{2k} +  T_{3j}\delta_{3k}
    \end{equation}
    In this case, the index "i" is the dummy index because it is the index over which we are summing, and "k" is the free index. Furthermore, no index may appear more than twice in an expression. Hence when performing index substitutions this rule must be taken into consideration.

    Einstein notation is very efficient when trying to simplify long equations, in which terms of similar nature may be summed over spatial dimensions (in our case 3). Consider the derivation of the navier stokes equation. 
    \begin{align}
    (\nabla \cdot \sigma)_i &= \partial_j \sigma_{ij}\\[6pt]
    &= \mu \partial_j \big(\partial_i u_j + \partial_j u_i \big) -\partial_i p \delta_{ij}\\[6pt]
    &= \mu \big( \partial_i \partial_j u_j + \partial_j \partial_j u_i \big) - \partial_i p \delta_{ij}\\[6pt]
    &= \mu \big(\nabla^2 u_i + \partial_i \partial_j u_j \big) - \partial_i p \delta_{ij} \\[2pt]
    &=   \mu \nabla^2 u_i + \mu \cancelto{0}{\partial_i (\nabla \cdot \textbf{v})} \hspace{0.2cm} -  \nabla p\\[6pt]
    &= \mu \nabla^2 u_i - \nabla p
    \end{align}

    where all symbols take standard meaning (since you don't want to say what the symbols mean, I won't either)
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    I figured you didn't understand what you were saying.

    Wait to make yourself fail.

    The debate the opponent suggested is not his own.

    The opponent lacks an understanding of mathematical physics.

    The debate the opponent stated requires a student to be a part of Ph.D. programs in theoretical physics  that can be completed in 4-6 years. Most programs require students to work as either physicsteaching assistants or teachers for several semesters during residency

    The opponent has failed to understand his own argument as the argument is an intelligent desighn argument with traces of added text that are contradiction s to the assertion.

    Jesus Christ is Lord.
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "The reason I want you to explains opening statement in lamens terms is so people can understand how what your saying is and are able to understand my reply."

    How is an argument that you haven't countered ? I have shown that universal parameters can be changed and life would still be sustainable. I then showed how the universe appears fine tuned due merely to the fact that we exist now. I then proposed other arugments agianst fine tuning (such as the fact that in the future the universe won't be fine tuned anymore). I then rewrote my opening statement in layman terms and gave an explanation of index notation. I know physics, believe me.

    You havent countered even one of them. 
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    The debate the opponent stated requires a student to be a part of Ph.D. programs in theoretical physics  that can be completed in 4-6 years. Most programs require students to work as either physicsteaching assistants or teachers for several semesters during residency

    Ever thought that it's summer, and that I said "I finished my MSc too" which means that I'll be starting my PhD in October?. 
    jesusisGod777
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "I figured you didn't understand what you were saying."

    I gave you an explanation of tensor notation. It makes sense. I even wrote an entire derivation using summation convention in LaTeX. 
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "The opponent has failed to understand his own argument as the argument is an intelligent desighn argument with traces of added text that are contradiction s to the assertion."
     

    You haven't countered any of my arguments. NONE. 
    jesusisGod777
  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    @KdCuber

    The Cosmological constant is an intelligent design argument.

    You can keep on losing credibility.

    You can't take a theoretical physics course unless your in a PHD program.

    You never stated you received a scholarship as students who are not yet adults receive scholarships to attend a university at such young ages only if they have tested out of highschool.

    Your statement is fallacious as you would not be in a master's program learning about theoretical physics.

    Jesus IS Yahweh God.
  • KdCuberKdCuber 78 Pts   -  
    "The Cosmological constant is an intelligent design argument."
    How so? Enlighten me. I repeat:
    "For example, consider the Rate of Expansion of the universe and the cosmological constant (consider it as the energy density of a vacuum). Theists believe that it was tuned to 1 part in 10^60. Cosmologists believed this as well, before EFE came (Einstein Field Equations). Using GR, they found out that the probability is 1. Not 1%, 1 out of 1. This can be easily seen observing a typical Galaxy Power Spectrum to Lambda CCD prediction graph. This is at the base of Quantum Loop Cosmology, but let's not get into too many details...

    The cosmological constant seems to be fine tuned to 120 orders of magnitude! that's INSANE. Indeed, one has to fine-tune _5;B to a precision of 122 decimal places to cancel the huge vacuum energy density to match the observations.
    There is one HUGE fallacy in this logic, it forces vacuum energy density to be constant, IT'S NOT. Another paper, this one I will explain since it is quite difficult: https://arxiv.org...

    The vacuum energy density is fundamental in calculating the cosmological constant, and forcing it to be constant is a mistake. WHy? Because yes, vacuum is an eigenstate (pretty much, an eigenstate in QM is a state for which, if an operator acts on it, it only multiplies it by a scalar quantity) of the Hamiltonian Operator, but NOT OF THE ENERGY DENSITY TENSOR!!!! This means that it may fluctuate according to its expectation value, which is HUGE. Even if you fine tuned the cosmological constant to 120 orders, the universe would still expand too quickly because of these fluctuations, the constant would get rid of the expectation value but not its fluctuation... Then the papers goes into some pretty heavy mathematics, but pretty much gives a relation for the effective cosmological constant showing how not fine tuned it is..."

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch