Summations Only

Actually, most of the items listed would be necessary for any advanced life. If you don't have stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis, you don't get any heavier elements. Yes, there are discussions about non-carbon-based life, but these are silicon-based life is not likely at all. I'm not certain what you are referring to. And your logic doesn't make sense. If our universe needs divine assistance to produce suitable conditions for life and gets those conditions by divine assistance, that is the very definition of fine-tuning. It is almost as if you are trying to argue against fine-tuning because the universe needs fine-tuning.

And you are arguing from the perspective of the multiverse which we have already seen is not science. If it is not testable, it is not science. Even Victor Stenger would not stoop to using the multiverse.

Really? You want to defend Victor Stenger? I have no problem with Frank's comment here. Read it again. "The strength of gravity simply is what it is." That is not what Stenger is saying. Stenger is saying the gravitational field may not be real and the strength of gravity can be whatever we want it to be. That's ridiculous.You write:"Gravity is not a force" and "In modern physics gravity has no strength." Not true. Gravity does have strength and it operates over very large distances, quite different from the strong nuclear interaction.If Frank Wilczek is the authority you are citing, you disagree with your authority. He admits gravity has strength and you don't.Look, we need to get back to discussing the topic of this thread which is "Can science say anything about a Creator God?"I will set up a different thread to discuss the weaknesses in Stenger's book.

Participants in this debate may be interested to read this news story on fine-tuning.It appears researchers are building on Hoyle's observations of about 60 years ago. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a paywall but the abstract is here.

If the most likely possibility (silicon) is not likely at all, and it is not likely according to NASA, then the more exotic possibilities are even less likely. Did you read the link to NASA? Ross may well believe the earth, when everything is considered, is unique. This does not mean he doesn't expect more planets to be discovered inside the Goldilocks zone but my guess and I think Ross's guess is those planets will be determined not to be suitable for advanced life.You write: "If the universe isn't capable of producing something then it obviously isn't fine-tuned to produce that thing. At least not successfully."In this statement you are assuming you know the purpose of the Creator and how many earth-like planets he wants to create. I don't think we know that. If the earth is fine-tuned for life, as the evidence seems to suggest, why would you expect that to happen multiple times around the universe?

Stenger's comments are not in agreement with general relativity. The gravitational field is extremely important to GR. Stenger says it may not be real. Come on, read Stenger's quotes again. They are indefensible. Calling me names does not help your cause. It only makes you look desperate. Re-read my comments.If you really want to defend Stenger, you can do so at the new thread I will start.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you are trying to see where I am coming from. Yes, of course, a scientist is willing to change his position if new evidence comes to light. But that is not what we are talking about here. In this situation, Stenger is trying to put his feet on both sides of the line. He says "I won't use the multiverse because it's an untested hypothesis." But he also tries to pretend it is scientific. It isn't. It is not just an untested hypothesis, it is an untestable hypothesis.

I didn't mean the papers needed context, I meant that you needed context. I think you are too lazy to read a book. Geez, did you bother to click on the link in Message 330? Ahhh... so you admit it.Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

I thought you were acknowledging that I was right. Amazingly, you side with Catholic Scientist who admits to being unwilling to read any books on the subject. Well, the level of this discussion is not going up at the moment. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

What papers did you cite? I must have missed that comment. I have been the only one citing papers and authoritative websites.

Yes, they do. But here's the problem. I show you evidence of Stenger's ridiculous comments that contradict GR and people still want to defend him. It's ludicrous. How can I show you evidence for other things when you won't admit gravity is real????

You still did not answer the question. Did you read the link I posted to NASA? Wrong again. Religious people, rightly or wrongly, tend to believe the planet they live on has a special place in the universe. It is true that Jesus said he has sheep in places we don't know about and that statement could mean he has creatures on other planets, but most Christians do not understand it that way.As we look out on the universe, it is typically hostile to life. So far, astronomers have been unable to find any planets suitable for advanced life forms. I believe Hugh Ross has prediction on future research in this area.Your assumption that God has fine-tuned the entire universe for life is unwarranted. The fact advanced life is rare shows how important the fine-tuning is. If advanced life was all over the universe, then one would naturally assume that life was result of the big bang - a purely natural process. That is not the view of most scientists because it does not match the evidence.

Within GR, there is no attraction. This is not the same as saying there is no force. But pay attention to the statement Stenger makes. He does not just deny gravity's attraction, he denies the gravitational field. The gravitational field does represent a force.Take this definition from Wikipedia:"In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influence that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body. Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Newton, Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century explanations for gravity have usually been sought in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction."The force created by this gravitational field is not fictional. It cannot be changed by my whim. We cannot make it whatever we want it to be - as Stenger says.Good gravy, I cannot even believe I am having this discussion.

Thank you, Percy! You saved me a trip to the library!

No Nukes,That was a thoughtful comment. I would really like to get this thread back to the original topic, but since you took the time I thought I would reply briefly. Hopefully, Victor Stenger will have its own thread someday. As Barnes notes on page 13, gravity can be a fictitious force in certain circumstances. However, it is not a true fictitious force in the same sense as centrifugal force because centrifugal force is always fictitious. Remember, the context of this discussion is the early universe. There are no reference frames, no special situations. The force of gravity is not like the strong nuclear force that only operates only over short distances. Gravity operates over vast distances, even the entire universe. Gravity is not a fictitious force when it comes to analyzing the early universe. I think Stenger is well aware of that. If gravity were a fictitious force in this instance, why would Rees, Hawking, Penrose etc all use the ratio of gravity to other forces? Is Stenger the only physicist who gets it right? No, just the opposite. Yes, Stenger does talk about a gravitational force. And he gets it wrong. On page 151, Stenger makes the strange statement: Again, this is not true. Actually, it is the strong force that is 137 times stronger than the electric force.Back to the comment by NoNukes: Stenger wants to diminish the importance of gravity and any fine-tuned ratio gravity is involved in... and there are a few. The payoff quote for Stenger is:"In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." p. 152.The strength of gravity is not an arbitrary number. In Newtonian physics, gravity is referred to as the gravitational constant. The difference between Newtonian physics and general relativity regarding the strength of gravity is not large.But to see how Stenger contradicts himself, look to the very next paragraph where he writes:"This does not mean that the strength of gravity relative to the other forces is not important. It just depends numerically on how you define it. That definition does not change the ratio of the forces between two particles in any specific situation."In one paragraph he says the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number. In the next he says the ratio of the strength of gravity to other forces is important. Now how can you resolve that paragraph with the paragraph just above it?