Probably right.
But I can get about
as close as anybody you ever met
I suppose.
"Where did math come from?"
My argument is everything that exist from subatomic particles to the wind have some sort of mathematical component, therefore math was the language, by which God spoke the universe into existence.
2nd Peter 3:5
by God’s word the heavens came into being
and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
And when your done
figuring out where math came from?
Then we can start on where did the information in the genetic code come from and how did it find its way into every cell of everything that has ever processed oxygen to live the only place we know of that has life.
And when you are done
with those two?
We cant talk about the 26 physical constants of the universe and how unlikely it is for a pantheon of deity's to have worked together on them.
Here is a list
along with some other things
to consider.
of fine-tuning for the existence of life:
Cosmic Constants
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Cosmological constant
(expansion of space)
Initial Conditions and “Brute Facts”
Initial distribution of mass energy
Ratio of masses for protons and electrons
Velocity of light
Mass excess of neutron over proton
“Local” Planetary Conditions
Steady plate tectonics
with right kind of geological interior
Right amount of water in crust
Large moon with right rotation period
Proper concentration of sulfur
Right planetary mass
Near inner edge of circumstellar habitable zone
Low-eccentricity orbit
outside spin-orbit and giant planet resonances
A few, large Jupiter-mass planetary neighbors
in large circular orbits
Outside spiral arm of galaxy
Near co-rotation circle of galaxy,
in circular orbit around galactic center
Within the galactic habitable zone
During the cosmic habitable age
Effects of Primary Fine-Tuning Parameters
The polarity of the water molecule
and here is what
the "Golden Boy of Cosmology"
"The Chosen one"
if you will
had to say:
“The remarkable fact is
that the values of these numbers
[the constants of physics]
seem to have been very finely adjusted
to make possible the development of life.”
Stephen Hawking
p. 125.
And when you are done
with all of that?
We can talk about
the initial conditions
of the universe
that led to it being
so perfectly designed to have life in it.
And when you are done
with that?
We can talk about
the initial conditions
of the laws of nature
(Thats right
there's two different sets
of initial conditions
one for the universe itself
to emerge as it has
and another for
the laws that were to govern it
THEY HAD TO BE IN EXISTANCE
BEFORE
the universe emerged as it did.
Or no universe jack asses.
Otherwise gravity wouldn't be instrumental
in making the atoms that make up everything.
Natural Laws don't invent themselves.
Laws require a law giver.
Got it?
Pretty simple stuff really.
I plan on teaching it to middle schoolers someday
since the Harvard PHD types
just cant quite seem to grasp it.
greekreporter.com 09/01/25
"Religion and science have often been viewed as opposing forces..."
(Thats a new thing invented by Satan
that just wasnt always the case.
If it wasnt for
the Judeo-Christian tradition?
you wouldn't have the
"true science"
that we know today:
See:
The idea that faith and science have always been diametrically opposed to one another is just a flat out blatant falsehood.
(And thank you Stephen C. Meyer)
"Standing on the shoulders of giants
doesn't make you one."
"Dr. Willie Soon has entered the debate with a provocative claim: the mathematical formula itself may serve as evidence of God’s existence."
(Dude?
Been saying it for years already.
If math is a man made construct?
Then why are we still discovering things about it
if we constructed it?
Logic is flawed.
Severely.
"But the Mayans added the zero"
Somebody once told me.
Yeah and their creation Myth said
they came from star people as well.
See Genesis 6:1-4.)
"Soon argues that
laws of physics are too precise to be chance
Dr. Soon, an astrophysicist and aerospace engineer, outlined his position during a recent appearance on the Tucker Carlson Network. He argued that the universe operates under laws so finely calibrated that they cannot be explained by coincidence alone.
(Well thank you Captain obvious.
You aint gotta be
a Harvard scientist to figure this stuff out!
I promise you, you don't.)
"His research draws on the concept of “fine-tuning,” which suggests the extraordinary precision of forces like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear interactions. A small shift in any of these constants, he said, could have made galaxies, planets, and life impossible. The precision, he suggested, resembles a formula for creation."
"Inspiration from Paul Dirac’s mathematical vision"
Soon’s ideas trace back to the work of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Paul Dirac. In 1963, Dirac observed that the mathematical harmony of the cosmos might reflect the hand of a
“mathematician of a very high order.”
("math was the language,
by which God spoke the universe into existence.
2nd Peter 3:5
by God’s word the heavens came into being"
So no kidding.
Duh.
Subatomic particles have mass.
Wind has velocity.
Everything that exist
EVERYTHING
has a mathematical component to it.
These people are just so smart.
Like they figured out something right?
There's a community
that has know this for a long time yo.
What do you think you are telling us?)
"Though Dirac was not religious, his remark hinted at intelligence woven into the laws of the universe. Dr. Soon extends that thought, arguing that the harmony revealed through mathematics could itself be proof of design.'
(No shit Sherlock.
Design imply a designer.
We see evidence of design everywhere
we look.
Therefore there had to be a designer.)
"The divide between design and natural explanation
Supporters of fine-tuning argue that the flawless balance of the cosmos cannot be random and instead point to intentional creation. Others, however, insist the order is simply the outcome of natural processes on a vast cosmic scale."
(Yeah so,
how did those get there then?
Natural processes that is.
By what "natural process"
did the "natural processes"
come into existence by?
See the dilemma here?
And then don't forget
that the
"natural process"
by which the
"natural processes"
come into existence by?
Apparently they just stopped
for some strange reason
cause we don't see any more
"natural process"
continuing to cause
any new
"natural processes"
these days yo.)
"Skeptics take a different approach, offering explanations like the multiverse theory. This idea suggests that our universe is just one of countless others, each with its own laws of physics. In such a framework, the conditions that allow life here would not be extraordinary, but one possibility among infinite variations."
(Yeah...
we won the universe lottery.
Right.
Makes perfect sense.
That explains it
Bitch Plz...
When your position
just gets annihilated
by the sheer volume of evidence
presented in front of you,
to the point
where your only option
is to plead the unscientific position
of every possible option
of everything
that could have ever been
has to be in play?
(And keep in mind we don't even know
what the parameters would be
on a lot of the fine tuning items listed above are,
where they would start, end and so forth)
Then you are toast.
You are done.
Your belief system
is a crock of shit.
"THE HONEYMOON OF LIES
IS OVER!"
Its not even a hypothesis.
(The Multiverse fable)
It can never be:
observed, tested,
measured or validated
or invalidated.
It is the only option left available
to try and invalidate
the fine tuning
we see of the universe for life.
When scientist are reduced down
to putting their faith in something
they know they can never even test
let alone prove,
you have got to ask yourselves
"Well why is that?"
and the answer is just so stunningly simple
BECAUSE
THEY DONT LIKE WHAT THEY SEE!
Which is
the universe was fine tuned
by its creator
for us, and life, to be in it.
"each (universe) with its own laws of physics"
Not one shred of evidence for that,
none and besides,
where would those have came from?
And?
Adding entities:
"every possible option
of everything
that could have ever been
has to be in play?"
to get the results you want?
("We must have won the universe lottery Bob."
"I think so Jim.")
is generally not a good way to go:
"when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest one is usually the best"
It violates the principal of Occam's razor
as bad as it can possibly be violated.
The multiverse doesn't just add
or multiply entities it says
(regardless of which version you go with)
all available entities
have to be in play.
For us to have
the universe we see today.
(Raise me the anthropic principal
and I'll see ya
with the Genetic Code right back.)
"Hawking stressed natural laws over divine proof"
(Where did they come from Stephen?)
"The late physicist Stephen Hawking addressed the same debate in his book “Brief Answers to the Big Questions.” Reflecting on his own disability, he dismissed the idea of divine punishment and
argued that natural laws
could explain the universe
without invoking a creator."
(Same problem,
the natural laws just invented themselves then?
Its beyond assinine)
“If you believe in science, like I do,
you believe that there are certain laws
that are always obeyed,”
Hawking wrote. “If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence.”
(So where did they come from then?)
Atoms
The basis of all solids,
liquids, gases and plasmas
could not have formed
without gravity having been there first.
So how did gravity figure out
it needed to
"get on the scene"
so to speak,
so that atoms could form?
Cause it had to be there
before they were created.
Its a problem for these people
that they dont wanna think about yo.
It proves
an order
and a sequence
that requires logic
and pre-planning.
It
REQUIRES
and intelligence to pull it off.
Seriously.
figured this out in the 1200's
just by reading the text of Genesis.
"Now listen to the correct and clear explanation of the verse in its simplicity. The Holy One, blessed be He, created all things from absolute non-existence. Now we have no expression in the sacred language for bringing forth something from nothing other than the word bara (created). Everything that exists under the sun or above was not made from non-existence at the outset. Instead He brought forth from total and absolute nothing a very thin substance devoid of corporeality but having a power of potency, fit to assume form and to proceed from potentiality into reality. This was the primary matter created by G-d; it is called by the Greeks hyly (matter). After the hyly He did not create anything, but He formed and made --things with it, and from this hyly He brought everything into existence and clothed the forms and put them into a finished condition."
Aren't we just so smart these days?
That was 800 years ago
just by a careful
critical analysis of the book.
Oh and BTW?
bigthink.com 06/12/23
"The new book On the Origin of Time reveals that the great late Stephen Hawking believed that the reductionistic paradigm he defended for much of his life is incorrect.
Ultimately, Hawking felt that
the mainstream narrative failed
to explain:
“How the Universe could have created
conditions so perfectly hospitable to life.”
Because
the universe didn't create
the conditions
so perfectly hospitable to life,
God did.
See, a scientist could conceivably
tell you everything about a cake
you would ever want to know
(chemical makeup, age,
process by which it was made etc)
but he would never be able to tell you:
WHY
it was made.
This community
doesn't have that problem.
The universe was fine tuned
by its creator
for life
and therefore us
to be in it.
Where did it get hard
to figure out exactly?
No comments:
Post a Comment