Universe: Fine Tuned For Life
wordsof...@email.com
The Argument from Fine-Tuning
"The heavens tell of the glory of God," claimed the Psalmist,
"The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship." The ancient
musician intuited aesthetically what modern cosmology is able to show
mathematically. The arrangement of natural laws and other features
provides not only stirring examples of the handiwork of our Creator but
provides us with a strong argument for His existence.
Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to
the existence of God. One of the most persuasive yet least proffered
arguments of this type is the argument based on the "fine-tuning"
of the universe for the existence of life forms. At least two dozen
demandingly exact physical constants must be in place for carbon-based
life to exist (see list at end of post), The slightest variation in any
of these conditions - even to a miniscule degree - would have
rendered the universe unfit for the existence of any kind of life.
Such a remarkable set of "coincidences" surely demands an
explanation. Indeed, as I hope to show, it can form the basis of one of
the most sound teleological argument:
The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical
necessity, chance, or design.
The apparent fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or design.
Therefore, it is due to design.
The first option, physical necessity, is the easiest to dismiss. The
idea that it was physically impossible for the universe to have been
created in any way other than in a manner that would support life is
neither logically necessary nor scientifically plausible. Our options,
therefore, are between chance and design. While it cannot be
established with absolute certainty, we can, I believe, determine that
design is the most probable explanation.
There is little dispute that probability of this series of
"coincidences" occurring is infinitesimally small. Still, it is
often argued that since we exist then the probability must be 1. In
their book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, John Barrow and Frank
Tipler contend that we ought not be surprised at observing the universe
to be as it is and that therefore no explanation of its fine-tuning is
needed. In other words, we can only observe the need for fine-tuning in
universes that support life.
Surprisingly, this dubious argument is often used as if it were a
silver bullet that destroys the fine-tuning argument. But philosopher
John Leslie (as told by William Lane Craig) provides an illustration of
why such reasoning is faulty:
Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen,
all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The
command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you
observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed!
Now while it is true that
5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are
dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that
6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely
improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though
you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since
if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should
not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which
are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that
7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe
which are compatible with our existence,
in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess
such features.
Another problem I find with this line of thinking is that it implies
that the probability of a stochastically independent event is
determined by the existence of an observer. For example, imagine a
universe that is exactly like ours yet contains no carbon-based life
forms. We could determine the factors required for such an existence
and calculate the probability of such constants appearing as they do.
The result, of course, would be an infinitesimally small probability.
The implication made by opponents of fine-tuning, though, is that the
probability suddenly becomes 1 by the mere addition of a human
observer. Such a conclusion is exceedingly absurd.
Most critics of fine-tuning have begun to recognize that this approach
is insufficient. Faced with scientific evidence that undermines their
agnostic assumptions, they turn to metaphysical speculation in the form
of the "many worlds" theory.
Briefly stated, the many worlds theory is the hypotheses that if the
universe contains an exhaustively random and infinite number of
universes, then anything that can occur with non-vanishing probability
will occur somewhere. True, the probability that our universe could
develop in a way that supports life is incredibly small. But, these
critics claim, in an infinite series of universes even the improbable
is likely to happen quite often.
(It should be noted that there is no scientific evidence for this view
(nor can there be since it is a metaphysical, rather than empirical,
claim). and that it is merely an attempt to side-step the obvious
implications of a designer by means of addition.)
Such a move, however, commits the inverse gambler's fallacy, which
states that an improbable event can be made less improbable by the
hypothesis that many similar events exist, and that the hypothesis is
thence confirmed by the improbable event. Even if multiple universe do
exist, though, it does not change the probability that our universe
would turn out as it did. Again, to use an illustration by John Leslie:
There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these
affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone
whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have
been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it
can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty
region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves.
Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired
the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall,
or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or
less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point
is that the local area contains just the one fly.
Having reduced the chance hypothesis to a virtual impossibility we are
left with the obvious conclusion that the fine-tuning is not only
apparent but actual. The fine-tuning implies the existence of a tuner,
hence we can conclude that the scientific evidence supports the
conclusion that God exists.
As I have stated ad nauesum, the uses of such an argument are not to
prove that God exists but to highlight the metaphysical and illogical
knots that agnostically inclined will twist themselves into in order to
avoid having to admit that the existence of God is more reasonable and
probable than its alternative.
Sources: J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical
Foundations for a Christian Worldview
Notes: According to astrophysicist Hugh Ross, more than two dozen
parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly
defined ranges for life of any kind to exist.
1. Strong nuclear force constant
If larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable
If smaller: no elements other than hydrogen
2. Weak nuclear force constant
If larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too
much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy
elements from stars
If smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little
heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy
elements from stars
3. Gravitational force constant
If larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too
unevenly
If smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never
ignite, hence no heavy element production
4. Electromagnetic force constant
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than
boron would be too unstable for fission
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force
constant
If larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses hence short stellar life
spans and uneven stellar luminosities
If smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element
production
6. Ratio of electron to proton mass
If larger: insufficient chemical bonding
If smaller: insufficient chemical bonding
7. Ratio of numbers of protons to electrons
If larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy,
star, and planet formation
If smaller: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy,
star, and planet formation
8. Expansion rate of the universe
If larger: no galaxy formation
If smaller: universe would collapse prior to star formation
9. Entropy level of the universe
If smaller: no proto-galaxy formation
If larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies
10. Mass density of the universe
If larger: too much deuterium from big bang hence stars burn too
rapidly
If smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy
elements forming
11. Velocity of light
If faster: stars would be too luminous
If slower: stars would not be luminous enough
12. Age of the universe
If older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right
part of the galaxy
If younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet
have formed
13. Initial uniformity of radiation
If smoother: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
If coarser: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14. Fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine
structure splitting of spectral lines)
If larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7
solar masses
If smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8
solar masses
15. average distance between galaxies
if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain
star formation over an adequate time span
if smaller: the sun1s orbit would be too radically disturbed
16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized
17. decay rate of the proton
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life
18. 12Carbon (12C) to 16Oxygen (16O) energy level ratio
if larger: insufficient oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon
19. ground state energy level for 4Helium (4He)
if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen
if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen
20. decay rate of 8Beryllium (8Be)
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions
in all the stars
if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life
chemistry possible
21. mass excess of the neutron over the proton
if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the
heavy elements essential for life
if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to collapse rapidly into
neutron stars or black holes
22. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: too much radiation for planets to form
if smaller: not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form
23. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life
to exist
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for
life1s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for
life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway
freeze-up
24. supernovae eruptions
if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky
planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of
rocky planets
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky
planets
25. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to
proceed
if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life
on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient fluorine
production
if too late: fluorine made too late for incorporation in proto-planet
26. ratio of exotic to ordinary matter
if smaller: galaxies would not form
if larger: universe would collapse before solar type stars could form
Conspiracy of Doves
puddle and saying that someone dug a indentation in the ground in the
exact shape of the water that would be in it.
Your Dr Ross is assuming specific types of life for his conditions. I
defy him, you, or anyone else to claim that you know all the
implications of all combinations of physical laws and that you know for
a fact that with a wildly different set of physics, some other form of
matter couldn't arise and possibly evolve into sentience.
FlameStrike
can possibly be regarded as a certainty. We have only one source of evidence
for what type of life can exist, namely life on Earth, and one universal
environment in which we have found life, namely our universe. We have no way
of knowing how things would be different in a universe with different
scientific laws, and therefore no way of knowing what would happen there.
After all, we have no way of observing a different universe.
--
FlameStrike
"My honor is my life!"
Prai Jei
in message <1123074019....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> Suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen,
> all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The
> command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you
> observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed!
Almost as improbable as a second wave of terrorist bombs being 100% duds
after a 100% success two weeks earlier.
--
A couple of questions. How do I stop the wires short-circuiting, and what's
this nylon washer for?
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Luigi Caselli
news:1123074019....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dismantling Implausibility Structures:
>
> The Argument from Fine-Tuning
> The apparent fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical
> necessity, chance, or design.
> The apparent fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or design.
> Therefore, it is due to design.
Obviously is due to design, simply because our universe is just a Big
Computer Simulation...
See http://www.simulation-argument.com/
<snip>
>Notes: According to astrophysicist Hugh Ross, more than two dozen
>parameters for the universe must have values falling within narrowly
>defined ranges for life of any kind to exist
They're only parameters driving the Big Simulation, and they must allow us
(the most interesting sims) to live...
Don't ask yourself too many questions about virtuality (or if you want about
reality), just accept it...
Enjoy seeing the big planetarium above us that we'll never reach... the
light speed limit is so well tuned to avoid humanity go to far away.
"Harry Truman's show" was a great movie, wasn't it...
Luigi Caselli
Rob Ellwood
>
> [snip crap]
1) Please do not feed the troll.
2.1) If you REALLY, REALLY have to reply, please ruthlessly
trim back the newsgroups you plague.
2.2) Better yet, take it to e-mail. I doubt you'll get a
reply, though: this looks like a throwaway e-mail account.
3) If you want to make the world a better place:
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
--
Rob Ellwood
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, wordsof...@email.com poured
fuel on the fire with the following:
> Dismantling Implausibility Structures:
>
> The Argument from Fine-Tuning
>
>
> "The heavens tell of the glory of God," claimed the Psalmist,
> "The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship."
Naturalistic Fallacy.
> The ancient
> musician intuited aesthetically what modern cosmology is able to show
> mathematically. The arrangement of natural laws and other features
> provides not only stirring examples of the handiwork of our Creator but
> provides us with a strong argument for His existence.
Ditto.
> Teleological arguments are arguments from the order in the universe to
> the existence of God. One of the most persuasive yet least proffered
> arguments of this type is the argument based on the "fine-tuning"
> of the universe for the existence of life forms.
Yawn.
...
> Such a remarkable set of "coincidences" surely demands an
> explanation.
You can start by demonstrating that these are coincidences.
...
> The apparent fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or design.
> Therefore, it is due to design.
<chuckle! > You really should proof read this stuff before posting.
> The first option, physical necessity, is the easiest to dismiss. The
> idea that it was physically impossible for the universe to have been
> created in any way other than in a manner that would support life is
> neither logically necessary nor scientifically plausible.
You can start by showing that the universe was "created".
> Our options,
> therefore, are between chance and design.
YOUR options. Those of us who do not subscribe to your straw man have
other options.
> While it cannot be
> established with absolute certainty, we can, I believe, determine that
> design is the most probable explanation.
>
> There is little dispute that probability of this series of
> "coincidences" occurring is infinitesimally small.
Unsupported assertion.
...
> 7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe
> which are compatible with our existence,
> in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess
> such features.
Baloney. Life is a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/text.html
Thus, life is as inevitable as the Second Law.
...
Regards,
Josef
The less you know the more you think you know, because you don't
know you don't know.
-- Ray Stevens
Enkidu the Atheist
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Life: Fine tuned for the universe.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
We may not doubt that society in heaven consists mainly of undesirable
persons.
-- Mark Twain
Smith W
You exist, therefore God arranged a meeting between your mom and dad,
right? For a lot of people, the probability of their parents meeting each
other seems minuscule in hindsight.
And God must have also determined which sperm was to get into the egg. Had
He not done so you would not exist. There would be another person,
possibly of another gender and not inclined to make Usenet posts.
The argument about 100 marksmen is total bullshit because fine-tuning
argument is about emergence of life, not about it not having been
destroyed.
Robibnikoff
"Luigi Caselli" <luigic...@anyspamrefusediol.it> wrote in message
news:nmaIe.3983$HM1....@twister1.libero.it...
"Harry Truman's Show"? Never heard of it.
Oh, were you thinking of "The Truman Show"? Incredibly stupid movie.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
Mark K. Bilbo
wordsoftruth114 burst into the room and exclaimed:
> Universe: Fine Tuned For Life
No it isn't.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Christopher A. Lee
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In episode <1123074019....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>wordsoftruth114 burst into the room and exclaimed:
>
>> Universe: Fine Tuned For Life
>
>No it isn't.
The loonies who get this bass-ackwards can't comprehend the universe
without themselves in it.
*us*
Furthermore, they believe their ambience would
somehow absorb an infinite amount of damage
from them without any repercussions ...
Elf M. Sternberg
> Such a move, however, commits the inverse gambler's fallacy, which
> states that an improbable event can be made less improbable by the
> hypothesis that many similar events exist, and that the hypothesis is
> thence confirmed by the improbable event. Even if multiple universe do
> exist, though, it does not change the probability that our universe
> would turn out as it did.
Fallacious analogy. The gambler's fallacy is predicated on the
notion that *THE* gambler benefits from the presence of similar events.
The many-worlds hypothesis is predicated on the notion that *A* universe
benefits from the presence of similar universes. That it happens to be
ours is no accident-- after all, it is *A* universe that can support
life like ours.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
thomas p
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>In episode <1123074019....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>wordsoftruth114 burst into the room and exclaimed:
>
>> Universe: Fine Tuned For Life
>
>No it isn't.
Well, for mosquitoes maybe.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
Joseph Hertzlinger
the Holy Book of Science Fiction: "Star Maker" by Olaf Stapledon.
According to "Star Maker," this universe was intelligently designed to
lead up to the Supreme Moment of the Cosmos, when the Cosmical Mind
encounters the Star Maker and ...
... finds out that this universe is a bleeping rough draft of the
Ultimate Cosmos, soon to be crumpled up and thrown into Heaven's
Wastebacket.
rugged indivduals
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:juf4f1t6mbnqtuq8u...@4ax.com...
You raise the Zen koan questions:
Does a tree falling in a forest make a sound if no one is present to
hear it?
Does the universe exist if we aren't here to observe it?
Joseph Hertzlinger
that the universe was designed to produce nuclear weapons.
God intended us to have nukes. He designed the universe in such a
manner that nuclear reactors are possible. He didn't have to do
that. If the neutron mass were a little bit higher, all the uranium
235 on Earth would have decayed to non-fissionable neptunium 235.
"The atomic bomb is a wonderful gift that was given to our country by
a wise God." --- Phyllis Schlafly
Cully_J
"Joseph Hertzlinger" <jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com>
wrote in message
news:W4oZe.3622$QE1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence (this means you)
> that the universe was designed to produce nuclear weapons.
>
> God intended us to have nukes. He designed the universe in such a
> manner that nuclear reactors are possible. He didn't have to do
> that. If the neutron mass were a little bit higher, all the uranium
> 235 on Earth would have decayed to non-fissionable neptunium 235.
He/She also gave humans enough intelligence to design them.
Cully
http://comatimes.blogspot.com/
Michael Gray
wrote:
But insufficient intelligence to avoid using them.
E.g.: Consider the man with his finger on the nuke button.
Mark J Underwood
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3nacj19gvm8idskq2...@4ax.com...
funny how Americans think that there is such a thing as god.... Oh I
forgot.. let go to church like Bush .... pray and then sign a death
warrent or 50 .. then invade other countries and slaughter thousands of
innocent civilians.
mmmmmm says it all really.
Jim Burns
Michael Gray wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:38:50 GMT, "Cully_J" <aca...@new.rr.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >"Joseph Hertzlinger"
> ><jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com>
> >wrote in message
> >news:W4oZe.3622$QE1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >> It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence (this means
> >> you) that the universe was designed to produce nuclear weapons.
> >>
> >> God intended us to have nukes. He designed the universe in
> >> such a manner that nuclear reactors are possible. He didn't
> >> have to do that. If the neutron mass were a little bit higher,
> >> all the uranium 235 on Earth would have decayed to
> >> non-fissionable neptunium 235.
> >
> >He/She also gave humans enough intelligence to design them.
>
>
> E.g.: Consider the man with his finger on the nuke button.
Why bother reading his mind?
Just read the newspapers.
Google "robust nuclear earth penetrator"
Google RNEP "first use"
Jim Burns
Cully_J
"Mark J Underwood" <mark.j.underwo...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:dh5vr7$rgs$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> funny how Americans think that there is such a thing as god.... Oh I
> forgot.. let go to church like Bush .... pray and then sign a death
> warrent or 50 .. then invade other countries and slaughter thousands of
> innocent civilians.
>
> mmmmmm says it all really.
Bush, the murdering rich dude, is no hero of mine. My heroes are religious
people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, My dad, Barney, Dr. Suess, and any
truly, trustable, nice, good person.
Cully
Mark J Underwood
"Cully_J" <aca...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tixZe.85838$3S5....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
HMS Beagle
<jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com> wrote:
>"The atomic bomb is a wonderful gift that was given to our country by
>a wise God." --- Phyllis Schlafly
Schlafly seems to be saying that pure violent power is the
justification of all earthly authority. Oh my.. what a dangerous
thing to say in a *philosophy* newsgroup.
Joseph Hertzlinger
Wouldn't far more people have been killed in a conventional invasion
of Japan?
Therion Ware
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:51:24 -0400 in alt.atheism, HMS Beagle (HMS
Beagle <bga...@microsoft.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Well, yeah. I mean when those philosophers have had a few they'll kick
the shit out of someone, soon as look at them.
http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/hum/philosophy/philos_song.au
Michael Gray
I had no idea that the rogue idiot Dubya ordered the 'nucular' bombs
to be dropped on Japan.
Paul Schlyter
One thing Bush and Bin Laden has in common is this: they both think they have
god on their side....
http://bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Smith W
>
> "Joseph Hertzlinger" <jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com>
> wrote in message
> news:W4oZe.3622$QE1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence (this means you)
>> that the universe was designed to produce nuclear weapons.
>>
>> God intended us to have nukes. He designed the universe in such a
>> manner that nuclear reactors are possible. He didn't have to do
>> that. If the neutron mass were a little bit higher, all the uranium
>> 235 on Earth would have decayed to non-fissionable neptunium 235.
>
But some other element which is not fissionable might become fissionable,
so atomic bombs would be made of something else.
Richard Eney
Paul Schlyter <pau...@saaf.se> wrote:
>In article <dh5vr7$rgs$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
>Mark J Underwood <mark.j.underwo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:3nacj19gvm8idskq2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:38:50 GMT, "Cully_J" <aca...@new.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Joseph Hertzlinger" <jcyclespersec...@nine.reticulatedcom.com>
>>>>wrote in message
>>>>news:W4oZe.3622$QE1....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>> It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence (this means you)
>>>>> that the universe was designed to produce nuclear weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> God intended us to have nukes. He designed the universe in such a
>>>>> manner that nuclear reactors are possible. He didn't have to do
>>>>> that. If the neutron mass were a little bit higher, all the uranium
>>>>> 235 on Earth would have decayed to non-fissionable neptunium 235.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He/She also gave humans enough intelligence to design them.
>>>>
>>>>Cully
>>>>
>>>>http://comatimes.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>> But insufficient intelligence to avoid using them.
Hm. First time they ended a war that had taken about 50 million lives.
Second time they prevented a war which, some claim, would have wiped out
all life on Earth.
Refresh our memories. What was the third time?
-- Dick Eney
Richard Eney
Michael Gray <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
>
>I had no idea that the rogue idiot Dubya ordered the 'nucular' bombs
>to be dropped on Japan.
The rest of us had no idea that anyone had claimed he did.
-- Dick Eney
Paul F. Dietz
>>>God intended us to have nukes. He designed the universe in such a
>>>manner that nuclear reactors are possible. He didn't have to do
>>>that. If the neutron mass were a little bit higher, all the uranium
>>>235 on Earth would have decayed to non-fissionable neptunium 235.
>>
>
> But some other element which is not fissionable might become fissionable,
> so atomic bombs would be made of something else.
>
Also, even if U235 were magically removed and nothing else changed,
it would still be possible to make atomic bombs. It would just be
more difficult. Pu239 would have to be made by accelerator-driven
techniques, using ~1 GeV protons on thick heavy metal targets to
make spallation neutrons. Once there was enough Pu, more could be
made in fast breeder reactors.
Paul
Michael Gray
wrote:
Me: "E.g.: Consider the man with his finger on the nuke button."
(Cleary implying, by the use of the present tense, that "the man"
meant "George Walker Bush")
And a direct response to that request by Joseph Hertzlinge:
"Wouldn't far more people have been killed in a conventional invasion
of Japan?"
Whch clearly implied that "the man", George Walker Bush, had approved
the use of nuclear weapons rather than a conventional invasion of
Japan.