First it was birds. Now they tell us the Universe isn't real

I didn't call this one. All I've ever said is that the moon isn't real.

It’s the only way they can go because the more you study science, the more it’s obvious the universe was intelligently designed. And they can’t admit that.

Does it mention Uranus?

The universe appears to have had a beginning (outside of space-time), operates by mathematically elegant laws, is finely calibrated for life, produces complex ordered structures, and contains information-rich biological systems. The case for intelligent design seems a better explanation than chance, necessity, or brute fact alone.

What always makes an impression on me is regardless of the physicist's theological viewpoint, they are all generally awed by the direction the intuition and math takes them.

quote:

---

How do you mean?

---

I was referring to Fred Hoyle, a British astrophysicist. He was not a bible-thumper trying to prove Genesis. He was a major scientist and skeptic of the Big Bang. While studying how stars produce carbon, he predicted a specific energy resonance in carbon-12 because otherwise the universe should not contain enough carbon for life. That resonance was later found experimentally and is now called the Hoyle state. It became one of the classic examples people point to when discussing fine-tuning. The nuclear physics of stars seems unusually well-suited to producing carbon, the backbone element for life as we know it.

EDIT: I should say this is just one example. There are other fine-tuning arguments and examples.

In my novice view, the universe is extremely inhospitable to life. It's why I believe we are so incredibly rare.

I suppose the existence of simple life would be harder to see and easier to exist, which is likely the context Hoyle is speaking in.

The fine-tuning argument does not claim that life is common or that most of the universe is hospitable. By volume, the universe is obviously overwhelmingly hostile to life.

The claim is narrower. The underlying physics appears to permit life to exist at all. Stable atoms, long-lived stars, carbon production, chemistry, planets, and liquid-water environments all depend on certain laws/constants falling within workable ranges.

So the universe can be mostly lifeless while still being “life-permitting” in the fine-tuning sense.

quote:

---

Does it mention Uranus?


My book, "Why, Gary, Why?" does?

---

Hiyo!!! Well done JD

quote:

---

Thanks for the follow up.

---

I am no expert, but being retired has let me finally dig into some of these things that I've wanted to for quite a while. There's a documentary out called "The Story of Everything" that does a pretty good job of hitting a lot of these 'nature of the universe' questions. Highly recommended.