silverboner blogged
Apr 02, 12 2:20pm

Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces in physics. The gravitational constant G is used in calculating the gravitational force between to objects, and its used in Einstein's Theory of Relativity which is important in understanding the expansion of the universe. Its the weakest of the four forces, 10^38th times weaker then the strong force, yet oddly enough we feel it the most, especially when we fall, or something falls onto us.

Physicist Brian Carter calculated in the 70s that if gravity changed by as little as 1 part in 10^40th (= 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) that this universe would be comprised of entirely blue giants or red dwarfs depending on if it was stronger or weaker. This is important because human life requires a sun like ours, and more precisely, probably a solar system like ours...but I will address both those in greater detail in another blog. The habitability of a planet orbiting a blue giant might be possible way, way way farther then Earth is from our Sun, but a blue giant is short lived. They are so big and hot, they burn out fast. There wouldn't be enough time for humans to evolve as the life span of the blue giant is but a few million years. The habitability of a red dwarf is arguable, but its reasonable to conclude that even if life could survive, human evolution could never occur. Red dwarfs output too much infrared light, and actually almost no visible light which would be necessary for photosynthesis as we know it, and any planet close enough to a red dwarf to be warm enough for life will probably be tidal locked...meaning one side of the planet will be perpetually locked into day and the other side night, making only a certain region on the planet habitable. Life might be possible on red dwarfs, maybe, but human life? NO.

Interesting enough, Micheal Brooks from a New Scientist article in 2009, states "Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within 1 part in 10^15 at 1 second after the big bang, allows life to form." 1 part in 10^15th = 0.0000000000001%. That is how precise gravity had to be for any and all life to form in this universe with respect to the rate of expansion (and density).

other musingsthoughts design god atheism universe gravity

Read more
silverboner blogged
Mar 28, 12 10:47am technically its not really a universal constant as the density of the universe changes with expansion. Never mind that little detail. The density of the universe at the big bang is probably one of the most precise values in physics. A change of just the slightest amount would cause our universe to either contract into a big crunch or expand too fast to where planets cannot form. That slight change is smaller then 0.000000000000001%. That is how precise the density of the universe had to be 1nanosecond after the Big Bang for our existence, and yet there is no known reason as to why our universe is exactly the density required to exist. Atheists would essentially have to believe it accidentally or randomly occurred as there is no known cause or physical laws that would result in the observed density.

The critical density of the universe(1,4) is the average density of matter required for the universe to just halt its expansion only after an infinite amount of time. A universe that has the critical density is said to be flat. "The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the observable universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error." (2) The reason the density of a flat universe has to be a specific number is due to gravity. If the pull of gravity was stronger or weaker, the critical density would be different. But here is the kicker. We have no reason to believe that gravity and density are interdependent. In other words, gravity and density are independent of each other. Gravity was "set" during the Big Bang, (randomly if you are an atheist) along with the perfect density to allow for the universe to exist (again randomly). Perfect to the 24th digit!!!!!!

For this universe to be flat, the density of this universe could not have been (at the time of the Big Bang) greater then 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,017 mg/cc(3). For if it was, gravity would have halted the expansion and all the matter and energy that expanded from the Big Bang would have already by this time collapsed back onto itself-Big Crunch.

For this universe to be flat, the density of this universe could not have been (at the time of the Big Bang) less then 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,015 mg/cc(3). For if it was, gravity wouldn't have been effective enough to allow for matter to form planets. The universe would have just expanded infinitely.

Now that is precision. For the atheist, they have to believe that such precision is accidental, coincidence, as there is no reason for the density to form exactly as necessary for the Big Bang to produce a universe with a critical density.

musingsthoughts other universe design god atheist density

Read more
silverboner blogged
Mar 27, 12 1:22pm

Hopefully my list of Universal Constants will be long enough to require a second blog to continue the list.

But it will probably take a long time to to get to this point.
silverboner blogged
Mar 27, 12 1:18pm

With all that is necessary for existence that we understand it amazes me that one can look at all the facts and believe that such precision is randomly and accidentally "created".

There are a number of resources on the web that deal with intelligent design, but when it comes to universal constants, I am usually left desiring more. Usually such lists I have found to be limited in length or detail. My intent with the creation of this blog entry is to update it as many times as needed. Its going to be my central list of universal constants that are required for this universe and humans to exist. The point of this is to illustrate the precision necessary for the universe and our existence, which should logically allow us to safely rule out random and accidental existence. There comes a point in time where there amounts so much evidence of precision that we have no choice but to rationally believe that random accidents cannot reasonable account for existence. Sure we can always believe in that, but the point of this blog is to demonstrate that such beliefs fly in the face of what we know.

Some of these constants are going to be ultra precise, some of them might have larger tolerances. Some of our tolerances might only be that wide because of our limits in our ability to measure.

This blog will hopefully over time become an exhaustive list, but I don't want it to be just a list, my intent is to follow up with each and every entry on the list with a blog that details out and expands on why that universal constant is necessary for the universe and or our existence. Basically this list and proceeding blog posts are going to be a work in progress.

The list will comprise of the universal constant name, followed by a comma, with the tolerance necessary for existence. So for example entry number one on the list states:

1. Density of the Universe (@ Big Bang), precision = 0.0000000000001%

This means that the density of the universe, if changed by 0.0000000000001%, then the universe and or us, wouldn't exist.

So lets get down to business.

List of Universal Constants
1. Density of the Universe (@ Big Bang), precision = 0.0000000000001%
2. The Gravitational constant, precision = 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001%

musingsthoughts other rathain wyvern design god universe creation atheism

Read more
silverboner blogged
Mar 21, 12 9:33am

Atheists are optimists. They are holding onto the belief that something can indeed come from nothing. To be an atheist absolutely means that you believe in creatio ex nihilo...creation out of nothing. And given the 200 years of modern scientific research and evidence, there isn't one shred of evidence to suggest that something can come from nothing. And in fact all the evidence is contrary to this belief. Rather the evidence strongly points to the fact that with nothing you get nothing, that change requires something to cause, something to allow, something to initiate. And if there is nothing, then there should always be nothing, as there is nothing to change nothing into creation.

Now some atheists might suggest an infinite cycle of universes, which is still problematic. There cannot be an "infinite" cycle for two reasons. There has to be a first cycle. Its unreasonable, irrational and illogical to argue that there is no "first" cycle. The problem of infinite regression is real. There has to be a cause for this universe, and there would have to be a cause for the cause of this universe, just as there would have to be a cause for the cause of the cause of this universe. A "first cause" must exist to set it all in motion, and to believe in some natural first cause (not god) requires faith in creatio ex nihilo.

The second problem is that for an infinite cycle to exist there has to be infinite energy or perpetual motion. Either there exists infinite energy for the cycle to continue, or the cycle is 100% efficient, and no energy is lost due to friction or heat or perpetual motion. There is no evidence for perpetual motion or infinite energy and yet there is plenty of evidence against such notions.

To be an atheist means you have to believe in ideas and concepts that not only have zero evidence for, but have lots and lots of evidence against. And that takes faith.

musingsthoughts other atheism god irrational creation faith

Read more
silverboner blogged
Sep 20, 11 3:15pm

I think one fundamental truth in this universe that lead me to God was morality. The fact is that I am an absolute moralist. Even as an atheist/agnostic, I so wanted to be a relativist, but deep down I knew and accepted that some actions are always wrong, independent of culture or upbringing. And it was this realization that lead me to find God.

You will hear atheists claim that you don't need God to be moral, and that much is true. What many atheists refuse to address, at least in my experience is how they can claim one morality is superior then the other, by what objective basis is their morality better then someone elses. Similarly they don't address the fact that most people are absolute moralists anyway, thereby necessitating God.

This is how absolute morality necessitates God. If someone believes some acts are evil, as in always and absolute evil, like *bleep* or cold blooded murder, then they assume good and evil exists, and they are capable of distinguishing between them. The belief that evil exists, basically that some acts are absolutely evil or morally wrong, is only a consequence of absolute morality, and the only way to have absolute morality, is if there exists an absolute moral God. Absolute morality, absolute evil, absolute wrong can only exist if there is an absolute authority to impose this absolute moral law. If the authority wasn't absolute, if he was temporal, then morality would be temporal, and not absolute. If there is no absolute moral law giver, then absolute evil doesn't exist. In which case, sometimes its morally OK to *bleep* or kill or steal.

There is no way around this. The only way some acts are always wrong, is if an absolute moral law giver exists to impose absolute morality onto us. If there is no absolute moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. We are then subject to relativism, where all morals are equal by virtue of the fact that no human being exists in any manner that is superior to any other human. We sure like to believe we are better then someone else, we sure would like to believe that our morals are better then someone else, but that is all based on values, which is all opinion, and your opinion is not objective basis, its an opinion, and its personal, and is in no manner better then the opinion of someone else.

Very few people actually believe that sometimes, or in some cultures *bleep* is morally right, or that cold blooded murder is morally right. I have met a few that would claim this, but they are a minority. Most people accept that some actions against other humans are just always wrong, and in doing so, necessitate God whether they understand it or not.

god morality atheist morals other musingsthoughts

Read more
silverboner blogged
Aug 25, 11 2:20pm

Energy had to come from somewhere. As previous blog entries demonstrated, causeless energy or infinite regression are nonsensical. There has to be a first cause. If we ignore these problems, and just solely look at the energy that exists and its properties there are more issues that come to light.

Namely the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT), probably one of the most misapplied and misunderstood laws of physics. This law is versatile in that it can be expressed in many ways. Claiming that heat cannot transfer from cold to hot bodies without imputing work into the system is one way to state this law. Another way to say it is that no process can convert energy 100% into work. Meaning there is always some energy that is lost in the transfer. This second statement is much more tangible and understandable. Basically there is always a loss of energy due to heat loss, like friction or resistance.

The fascinating aspect of this law, is that its one of the few physical laws that makes a claim in relation to time. Time is always moving forward, and all the energy in the universe is moving towards equilibrium, to a point where all the energy will be useless for work. No life, no sun, no stars. This is the point where the the universe collapses back into a singularity, and the laws of physics supposedly break down, and all this useless energy is magically transformed into energy that is available for work.

Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

There are at least a few problems here. For starters there is no known mechanism to allow this useless energy to be re-made into usable energy. All one can really do is claim "it must just happened" and appeal to the fact that at a singularity the laws of physics break down. But then we have to ask why energy is created rather then destroy itself?

Another problem is found in something Hawking has suggested, that the universe would be created or formed based on laws of physics. For hawking this is beautiful and solves the problem of the cosmos for him, yet problematic in two ways. For one, no known laws of physics exist at a singularity or govern a singularity, and two, why wouldn't we apply the same assumption we do about the laws of this universe, namely they apply everywhere at all times, to the "phyiscs" governing the creation of the universe? Basically if energy cannot be created or destroyed in this universe, why would that happen outside the universe? Or if energy is always lost in work, why would there be any energy after infinite time to be capable of work?

The only way around these issues, is to imagine a different kind of energy or different laws that have no scientific basis, where we cannot observe nor have any means to even observe it. It amounts to "God did it", and yet there is more evidence for God then this belief.

Read more
silverboner blogged
Jun 29, 11 1:44pm

This problem is very close to the problem of infinite regression (see previous blog). An entity cannot create itself, nor cause itself, thus something else has to create it or cause it. We observe in this universe cause and effect, and causality is a fundamental assumption within science. This assumption then necessitates the problem of infinite regression, because if everything is caused by something, then we create a string of causes ad infinitum.

There is another problem with causality. Many times its not applied to the universe itself. Speculation on the origin of the universe includes ideas that the universe was always there and just set in motion, or that it just "popped" into existence. For what ever reason, you hear explanations or hypotheses that ignore this fundamental assumption about how the universe works. People are so quick to utilize the assumption to learn about inside the universe, but they don't bother to apply it to the universe itself. As though the universe is a causeless effect. And this violates all known observations and the a fundamental assumption we use to help understand the universe.

The universe is commonly defined as the totality of all existence. Without all that is inside the universe, the universe itself wouldn't exist...another way to put this is that the universe exists because energy and matter exist. They are one and the same. The universe is not understood to be a container filled with energy and matter, rather its made up of energy and matter. This makes it very difficult to differentiate between what is inside and the universe itself. And if we cannot differentiate then we cannot assume that the universe is a causeless effect since energy and matter, the substance that makes up the universe is (assumed to be) governed by causality.

Basically, we cannot assume causality for energy and matter inside the universe, but then not apply this assumption to the universe. Thus the universe cannot be a causeless effect.

other god universe causality

Read more
silverboner blogged
Mar 18, 11 3:43pm

The problem of infinite regression is a consequence of the fact that the universe cannot create itself. Or in more general terms, an entity cannot create itself. It’s logically incoherent to suggest that an entity that doesn't exist, to act or perform some actions which will result in its own creation. If an entity can act, let alone create, it must exist already and therefore cannot create itself because it would have already been created. To put this in another way, the universe cannot have caused itself, and thus it has to be caused by something else.

And that of course begs the question, what caused the universe? Assuming you managed to come to some conclusion or answer, lets call it "Cause of the Universe", that then also begs the question what caused the "Cause of the Universe". And you can always ask that question infinitely, to where infinite causes have caused this universe. Infinite regression, a never ending string of causes resulting in our universe. If we were to represent this with an analogy, lets say this universe is represented as a domino, and that its creation is represented by it being sent into motion by a previously falling domino. Infinite regression would have infinite dominoes toppling over one setting into motion the next dominoe/s. There is a problem with this because there always has to be some prior domino, and yet there is no cause for all those dominoes to exist in the first place. The infinite causal regress has no cause.

And so a First Cause has to account for the existence of the dominoes, and push over the first one. Christians would call the First Cause God. The atheist then asks what caused God. Yet that question isn't warranted. We ask “what caused the universe”, because the overwhelming evidence strongly suggests this universe was created. For the Big Bang subscribers, it was 15 billion years ago. And there are lots of other theories out there including string theory and Hawking’s bubble theory and imaginary time. The energy and matter that we observe and required for our own existence, has to exist because of some cause. But given our lack of understanding and ability to measure, observe, and quantify God, we don’t know if He exists in a state or as a being that even requires creation. This universe requires creation…God does not…necessarily. So when the atheist asks “who or what created God” such is based on the presumption that God needs to be created. When we ask “who or want created the Universe” it is based on evidence that the universe needs to be created. Presumption Vs Evidence. One question is warranted, the other is presumed.

Now I suppose you can argue that the first cause doesn’t have to be God, or the Christian God, and that certainly is true. But the universe cannot create itself, and an infinite regression is a problem because there is no cause for any of it.

god infinite universe other

Read more
silverboner blogged
Feb 28, 11 11:42pm

One of the main reasons as to why I believe God is necessary is that in all of our 160+ years of modern scientific observations, the Law of Biogenesis has never been violated or observed to be in error. I have heard a few non-believers claim that this isn't even a law, but yet no known violations of it have ever been observed. If its not a law, its not because it doesn't fit the scientific criteria to being a scientific law, it would be purely because atheistic evolutionists don't like the implications of it.

Life has only ever been observed to come from life. Humans reproduce humans, sheep reproduce sheep. The complexity of life, even cells is too mind boggling to even begin to think that a cell could arise without some divine intervention or purpose. 150 years ago, one might be able to convince himself that the cell is so simplistic it could arise out of chance but given our modern ability to observe a cell, and understand its functions and chemical reactions and the many functions it carries out, I cannot fathom how even the cell can come to be without God.

Here is a just a brief list of some process conducted by the cell, all processes have cellular mechanisms and structures in place to carry these tasks and process out. These are not "simple" processes.

Protein movement
Active TransportPassive Transport
Cell Adhesion
Cellular Reproduction
cellular signalling
DNA Repair

And by no means is this a complete list. And don't think this is a "irreducibly complex" argument. Its not. Cells come from cells, life comes from life. Never has non-life ever been observed to produce even the most simplest forms of life, which aren't that simple to begin with.

Read more
silverboner blogged
Sep 29, 10 5:42pm

One question, so many possible ways to respond. A minimum "yes" or "no" will suffice in answering the question, but not to many people would be satisfied with such answers. Its the reasons for one's answers that are much more interesting.

Here are a few reasons as to why I believe in God...and particularly the God of the Bible. "Proof" is only relevant in mathematics...and instead we will have to deal with reason and evidence.

Reasons for God...
1. Law of biogenesis
2. Infinite Regression
3. Cause and effect
4. Origin of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
5. Alternative explanations contradict what is observed

Evidence/Reason for God of the Bible....
7. OBEs and NDEs
8. Biblical Prophesies, including Messianic Prophesies.
9. Archeology, as evidence for Biblical events.
10. Miracles

  • USA US
  • Joined Dec 4, 2005
  • private
  • private
  • private


  • Profile views 3,843
  • Number of logins 4,073
  • Forum Posts 3,277