/sci/ - Science & Math

>one part stronger in about 10000000000
wat

Not 1 in 10000000000, but still 1 in a pretty big number. So, I would say this fact is a bit true.
Your rebuttal could be that maybe gravity had no 'choice' regarding its strength. This is what cosmologists actually believe.

Debating is so retarded. You know science can't explain everything. Something cannot be created by nothing. Not saying I'm religious at all though.

>>2758687

>You know science can't explain everything.

inb4 shitstorm

If a universe where gravity was that 1 point higher there wouldn't be anything in it capable of observing such a state, ergo, his point his moot.

>>2758691
But science is the very act of trying to understand and explain everything.
Open your closed minds

It is not true. It would make our present universe different, but still largely the same. I am surprised that they are going after gravity. Fairly small fluctuations in the Planck constant can result in start not shining, but small changes in the gravitational constant would only change collapse times and some thresh holds about where stellar fusion reactions start as an example. Small fluctuations would not really change the expansion of the universe as, well, it massively overpowered gravity in the inflationary stage and is still at least balanced with gravity fairly well. Minor changes would not really tip the balance to my knowledge.

Wait what was the point your conversational partner was attempting to make?

If it was, "The fact that things are just right is proof of a creator," your rebuttal could be, "If things were not right, we would not be here debating the subject. You are judging this based on one instance. Suppose, for a moment, that there have/are multiple 'universes.' [note: I hate the phrase multiple universes] Now consider, if you will, changes in the constant you've mentioned. If what you say is true, **there would be no one to observe the ones where conditions are not suited for life.** Thus, the 'ideal' condition, from the observers' point of view, will always be, and the not ideal, always not be. A 'universe' instance will ALWAYS have sufficient conditions for life, for without life it would not be observed. The fact that we, the observers, are here, presupposes the fact that the conditions are ideal -- or at least just barely sufficient -- for things to be the way they are."

Does that make sense? I've been sleepless for some time so it may not be completely lucid.

Anyway, you could also argue the fact that, although that constant may be 'just right,' there are many things that are far from ideal.

>>2758714

But what happens when you run into /x stuff that cannot be explained by science? You can't simply dismiss it unless you're a loser homosexual stage magician who looks like Santa Claus, but isn't nearly as jolly.

>>2758721
>But what happens when you run into /x stuff that cannot be explained by science?

We make a better science.

You shouldn't debate a creationist, before initiating a debate with anyone first make sure they are of a high enough intelligence to understand your points and open enough to consider new ways of thinking.
Creationists are neither and you are only wasting your energy debating them.

Yes, OP. If the world was different the world would indeed be different.

>>2758730
>We claim it's fake and ignore all the evidence that proves us wrong

Fixed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

God is not God: The Necessary Paradox of Theism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBfX5uuhH3Q

>>2758747
The universe wouldn't collapse, one part in 10000000000 wouldn't make much difference anyway. There would still be life somewhere but if you reran the universe (even in the same conditions as ours evolved in) there could easily be no life on earth and life somewhere else, hopefully not stupid enough to believe that the whole universe was created for them

>>2758747
and what he said, if the universe was different, it would probably not be the same as it is now

also
>mfw we meet aliens somewhere and we tell them god made the whole universe for us

>>2758755
3/10
see me after class

>>2758687
l2 QFT
even if there is nothing there are still field fluctuations, all there needs to be for there to suddenly be space is energy, quantum fluctuations make the inflaton field drop it's potential energy resulting in a lot of energy being expelled, this is the 'nothing' that the universe came from

if you have no understanding of current theories, you really shouldn't be disregarding them

>>2758755

And we rage against /x like stuck pigs.

>>2758735

I disagree. (Young) Creationists can have high intelligences, they have just been brainwashed. If they do have high intelligences, they will usually be able to figure out they have been brainwashed (I use that term loosely) eventually. An old creationist (25+) I would assume does not have a high intelligence.

>>2758755
2/10. Try not to make it so obvious, newbie.