0.0073

Our Improbable Existence

Scientific American
January 2021

We exist, and we are living creatures. It follows that the universe we live in must be compatible with the existence of life. However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low. We can model what the universe would have looked like if its constants—the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the cosmological constant—had been slightly different.

What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible.

The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10[SUP]229[/SUP].




Fine tuning is the best argument the holy rollers have, but they generally don't use it because they don't understand it.

Even then, it's terrible evidence for God because it falls into the categories of hasty generalization fallacies
 
Did you ask sensible questions????
I have asked countless questions, as have others, and Cypress has never made any attempt to answer, and he will never admit that the only information he ever had on any topic, he scraped off Quora minutes earlier, without independently checking whether it was even correct.
 
giphy.webp
200.webp
200.webp

Great stuff! Cypress literally has no ability to respond to anything. He is the commensurate moron who only knows how to pretend that he is mocking someone ... just without ever mentioning any specifics. Too funny.


giphy.webp
200.webp
200.webp
 

IBDumbass does not ask questions in good faith.

He composes what he thinks are 'gotcha' questions, and then runs away like a little girl when it blows up in his face -->


Click this hyperlink : IBDumbass has his "gotcha" question blow up in his face, and then slinks away from the thread


hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!
There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
Darwin's theory of evolution is not science
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
Axioms are not postulates!
:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:
 
giphy.webp
200.webp
200.webp

Great stuff! Cypress literally has no ability to respond to anything. He is the commensurate moron who only knows how to pretend that he is mocking someone ... just without ever mentioning any specifics. Too funny.



giphy.webp
200.webp
200.webp

Do you know what James Clerk Maxwell was mostly remembered for????????
 
Fine tuning is the best argument the holy rollers have, but they generally don't use it because they don't understand it.

Even then, it's terrible evidence for God because it falls into the categories of hasty generalization fallacies

What 'fine tuning'? Understand what? What do you consider a 'holy roller'?
 
IBDumbass does not ask questions in good faith.

Agreed that IBDM doesn't really deal in good faith. But, that being said, pretty much ANYONE who even mildly disagrees with you would be guilty of the same thing in your estimation. At least that's how you act.

He composes what he thinks are 'gotcha' questions, and then runs away like a girl when it blows up in his face -->

I guess you are a sexist, too. Can't say I'm surprised. "Like a girl". SMH. Are you like 80?
 
Back
Top