Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Craig makes a compelling argument. Craig makes a compelling argument.

04-29-2011 , 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackHighFlop
Yeah, but some humans have to live in a larger universe anyway. It maybe is the only universe in which this version of yourself makes this argument ("wtf big universe!"), but it has to happen at least once anyway. (the proof is that we're here to see it)

You're still restating the anthropic principle in a different form, which tries to allow for God, when it clearly has nothing to do.
I don't think so. I have always accepted the multiverse universe model as a valid explaination for the apparent fine tunning of the universe. I just see Craigs argument as possibly poking holes in it(I'm just not familiar with the underlying theories to know for sure).

What I have observed on this forum is people putting forth an anti-anthropic principle....which tries to reject the existence of God.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-29-2011 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I don't think so. I have always accepted the multiverse universe model as a valid explaination for the apparent fine tunning of the universe. I just see Craigs argument as possibly poking holes in it(I'm just not familiar with the underlying theories to know for sure).

What I have observed on this forum is people putting forth an anti-anthropic principle....which tries to reject the existence of God.
The original anthropic principle has nothing to do with God. It's you who is trying to twist it to allow for it.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-29-2011 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...ane-Craig-/640

He claims that if the apparent fine tuning of our universe is the cause of random happenstance, then our universe is much more likely to be on the smaller side than the larger. I have to agree with him.

So given the laws of physics as we know them and how we currently speculate them, does the fact that our universe is so large point to the existence of God?
Even if he is correct, the answer to your question is still no. And he knows it. And you know it. Shame on both of you.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-29-2011 , 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
What I have observed on this forum is people putting forth an anti-anthropic principle....which tries to reject the existence of God.
laughing out loud
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-29-2011 , 11:32 PM
The observable universe is large compared to what? Many inflationary models tell us that the total universe is much, much larger than the observable horizon, so it might be small on the scales relevant for the problem.

As for fine tuning, it is not clear that anything in the standard model is fine tuned. It is not very likely that all standard model parameters are independent and the ones that are might not require high degrees of fine tuning at all
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-30-2011 , 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I don't think so. I have always accepted the multiverse universe model as a valid explaination for the apparent fine tunning of the universe. I just see Craigs argument as possibly poking holes in it(I'm just not familiar with the underlying theories to know for sure).

What I have observed on this forum is people putting forth an anti-anthropic principle....which tries to reject the existence of God.
And yet, here we are, with a thread titled "Craig makes a compelling argument."

stu gonna stu
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-30-2011 , 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
The observable universe is large compared to what? Many inflationary models tell us that the total universe is much, much larger than the observable horizon, so it might be small on the scales relevant for the problem.

As for fine tuning, it is not clear that anything in the standard model is fine tuned. It is not very likely that all standard model parameters are independent and the ones that are might not require high degrees of fine tuning at all
I'd like to know what is the average size of an inflationary patch predicted by the theory. From that information I could then make a statement as to whether the actual universe is unusually large or unusually small.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-30-2011 , 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loK2thabrain
And yet, here we are, with a thread titled "Craig makes a compelling argument."

stu gonna stu
I was a lot more fond of Craigs argument before I started this thread. However the discussion has caused me to lessen my enthusiasm. I realized I don't know enough about the theory to assume large inflationary patches are as common or more common then small ones.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-30-2011 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I'd like to know what is the average size of an inflationary patch predicted by the theory. From that information I could then make a statement as to whether the actual universe is unusually large or unusually small.
Found my answer.

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-p...Alan-Guth-/865
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-30-2011 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I'd like to know what is the average size of an inflationary patch predicted by the theory. From that information I could then make a statement as to whether the actual universe is unusually large or unusually small.
There isn't a clear answer to your question, since inflation is more a group of models, not all of which we know about, rather than a specific theory. But a huge total universe much larger than the observable universe does seem to fall out fairly generically when you try to make inflationary models match to observations. This is far from an air tight proof though.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-30-2011 , 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Raker
There isn't a clear answer to your question
Actually, there is. And Stu Pidasso on 2+2's RGT forum through collaboration with William Lane Craig on a creationist think tank website has figured it out:

Quote:
if the apparent fine tuning of our universe is the cause of random happenstance, then our universe is much more likely to be on the smaller side than the larger. I have to agree with him.
Why haven't the worlds astronomers and cosmologists been apprised of this? Their data is so clear and their experimentation so rigorous.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
04-30-2011 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
I was a lot more fond of Craigs argument before I started this thread. However the discussion has caused me to lessen my enthusiasm. I realized I don't know enough about the theory to assume large inflationary patches are as common or more common then small ones.
Everyone makes mistakes, but this seems to be an obvious pattern with you going on for literally years now. Isn't that something you should have known before making this thread? It's quite central to the OP don't you think? And before characterizing the argument as "compelling"? Or do you just categorize any sort of argument that favors the existence of a god, involving any sort of cosmic phenomena, as "compelling"? Because that's sure as hell what it seems from my view.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote
05-01-2011 , 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso
Okay so you accept(at least for discussion sake) that from our prespective this universe appears to be fine tuned for life like us. Why is it so big then? If we are just one of an infinite number of randomly generated universe why did we end up in such a huge one when a much much much smaller universe is all that would be required for fine tuning of life of our sort?
I think his claim is complete looney nonsense. I just don't agree with his conclusions. I do not think it makes any more or less sense for the universe to be "smaller," "bigger," or the size it is now, given the premise that it was fine tuned (by Jesus, right?) to support human life.

Furthermore, I'm no physicist, but I am skeptical that the notion of our universe being smaller but still the same (producing humans as we know them) is actually meaningful.

I guess I should disclose that I'm one of those "the universe does not appear fine tuned" people you told to stay away, but I am nevertheless trying to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the conversation.
Craig makes a compelling argument. Quote

      
m