The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Thgat´s (1).


It´s an assertion, not an explanation. And, yes, that´s what humans have been doing for ages: Whenever something deems them insignificant and they had no explanation, they conveniently postulated some obscure conscious entities as the cause. Until an actual explanation was eventually found (and even then, they often kept believing in this entity).
Interestingly, the first thing you, Lady Oncedeceived, do when someone gives another hypothesis, is asking: "How?". Just with your own hypothesis, the fact that you can´t answer "how?" (that which would render the assertion an explanation) isn´t a problem for you.

In ages past there was superstitions and false gods just as there are today. All this talk of how science has just eliminated the need for God as an explanation is that just talk. Science today has revealed so much evidence for design that even scientists have to remind themselves that they should believe that the design they see in things is an illusion. Science hasn't explained away God but has in fact supported the Design we should see there if an Intelligent Being designed it.

No, it´s not. An explanation answers the question "how?".

How, by creating a universe with the fundamental constants that not only allow the universe to exist but intelligent life as well. How was that done: by precisely tuning them to allow for intelligent life to arise.

Bandwaggon appeals aren´t that impressive.

Facts are facts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I did say I would give you the last word so I will only respond to the first point since you asked. I don't actually think you are being intellectually dishonest, I think it is just loose use of language.

I specifically asked how it would be intellectually dishonest?

What I was pointing out is evident in your response as well when you said "I have provided sources from scientists that say that complex life is very rare and most simulated models of other universes can not give rise to complex life of any kind...ours or any other." I think what you mean is that you have provided sources showing that carbon based life in our universe is possibly or probably extremely rare if not one of a kind. But again this only addresses life as we know it so you can't say, as you did above, that we have evidence that no form of comex life that is not life as we know it could arise under different constants.

I find it odd that the fact that I provided citations from scientists claiming that not only life as we know it but any kind of life is very rare; this is not to say and they are not saying that carbon based life is rare (although they believe it is) but all life. As I provided Barnes shows that due to other values of constants even the most basic elements would not be available to provide chemistry for ANY type of life in the majority of simulated universes. Since I provided that information I find it somewhat baffling that you would then say that it is "loose use of language" or that it addresses life only as we know it.

I'm sorry you felt I didn't contribute very much As I said it is not my area of expertise so while I did post several messages I was generally happy to read what others were saying and post my own thought's only when they were different from what was being said. I figured you had enough people to respond to without me repeating the exact same arguments they were making

Good point.

Feel free to send a message in our conversation thread about which topic would be most interesting to you going forward.

Peace

I haven't seen anything so far that has countered this thread as of yet. We will have to see what happens.

 

[quatona]

In ages past there was superstitions and false gods just as there are today. All this talk of how science has just eliminated the need for God as an explanation is that just talk. Science today has revealed so much evidence for design that even scientists have to remind themselves that they should believe that the design they see in things is an illusion. Science hasn't explained away God but has in fact supported the Design we should see there if an Intelligent Being designed it.

There´s not much point in talking to you when you reliably won´t address the points, but instead go on endless rants about stuff I didn´t say.

How, by creating a universe with the fundamental constants that not only allow the universe to exist but intelligent life as well. How was that done: by precisely tuning them to allow for intelligent life to arise.

That´s not an answer to "how" - it doesn´t explain the mechanisms etc.

Facts are facts.

Sure. But I responded to your bandwaggon appeal.

So, the simple point for you to remember:
"Fine-tuned (1)" is what science informs you off. "Fine-tuned (2)" is your religious belief imposed on it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There´s not much point in talking to you when you reliably won´t address the points, but instead go on endless rants about stuff I didn´t say.

AS a reminder: You said: It´s an assertion, not an explanation. And, yes, that´s what humans have been doing for ages: Whenever something deems them insignificant and they had no explanation, they conveniently postulated some obscure conscious entities as the cause. Until an actual explanation was eventually found (and even then, they often kept believing in this entity).

I was answering (not ranting) to what you said above. How is that not addressing your points? It was right on to your point.

That´s not an answer to "how" - it doesn´t explain the mechanisms etc.

So? There are how's in science all the time without knowing the mechanisms.

Sure. But I responded to your bandwaggon appeal.

That was in response to your post. It wasn't an argument I was using.

So, the simple point for you to remember:
"Fine-tuned (1)" is what science informs you off. "Fine-tuned (2)" is your religious belief imposed on it.

The fine tuning (1) is evidence. (2) is an explanation for (1).

 

[KCfromNC]

How would you see design of God if you don't think the appearance of design is anything but an illusion?

Who was it who said that reality is the stuff that doesn't go away if you stop believing in it?

If you have to already believe that god(s) are involved to believe that gods are involved that this looks more like an exercise in wish fulfillment than anything to do with the facts.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have been the only one providing support for my claims.

Still waiting for you to try and answer find a paper describing the scientific consensus on how unlikely our universe is.

You have supplied nothing but assertion, speculation and anti-religious rhetoric.

And here I thought you were saying your conclusions had nothing to do with your religious preferences, that they were instead rooted in science. Can you stick to one argument, please. The clip-clopping of those flip flops is bugging the dog.

 

[quatona]

So? There are how's in science all the time without knowing the mechanisms.

Like what? Science, as far as I can tell, doesn´t simply insert "an obscure entity did it" when it doesn´t know how to explain a process.

It wasn't an argument I was using.

Exactly, and even less was it a "fact".

The fine tuning (1) is evidence.

The fine tuning (1) is an observable fact.

(2) is an explanation for (1).

What does it explain, exactly?
So far, it´s just obscurantism.
When I can´t find my keys, I won´t jump to the conclusion that invisible trolls have stolen it.

As soon as you give a solid explanation how you get from (1) to (2) we can get talking.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who was it who said that reality is the stuff that doesn't go away if you stop believing in it?

If you have to already believe that god(s) are involved to believe that gods are involved that this looks more like an exercise in wish fulfillment than anything to do with the facts.

If people have to claim that the evidence of design in things is an illusion, I think that looks more like an exercise in wish fulfillment than dealing with facts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still waiting for you to try and answer find a paper describing the scientific consensus on how unlikely our universe is.

I told you they come to that conclusion by the evidence that I supplied to you.

And here I thought you were saying your conclusions had nothing to do with your religious preferences, that they were instead rooted in science. Can you stick to one argument, please. The clip-clopping of those flip flops is bugging the dog.

When did I say anything about my conclusion having nothing to do or to do with religious preferences? Making things up now?

 

[[serious]]

Nonsense.

How would you know if they couldn't be different that they aren't set?

Pi comes up in equations and nature. Why would it come up in equations and nature if it is random?

Right, so could pi have been different than it is? Does it have to be precisely set?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like what? Science, as far as I can tell, doesn´t simply insert "an obscure entity did it" when it doesn´t know how to explain a process.

The point is that science doesn't always know how to explain a process nor do I know exactly the mechanisms that were used to fine tune the universe.

Exactly, and even less was it a "fact".

It is a fact, billions of people believe that theism is the best explanation.

The fine tuning (1) is an observable fact.

Yes, we agree.

What does it explain, exactly?
So far, it´s just obscurantism.
When I can´t find my keys, I won´t jump to the conclusion that invisible trolls have stolen it.

As soon as you give a solid explanation how you get from (1) to (2) we can get talking.

Appearance of design either is actual design or there is another reason for the appearance of design that explains design better.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, so could pi have been different than it is? Does it have to be precisely set?

How could it be different? How do such precise relations appear repeatedly in nature?

 

[Moral Orel]

It was actually Hugh Everett that originated the theory, which was prior to Dicke yes but Dicke was not the originator of the premise of fine tuning. Early in the 1900, 1914 I believe maybe sooner a chemist named Henderson was working on the fine tuning. Yet, it wasn't until recently that the multiverse was considered to be a valid explanation.

Everett came up with the theory from an idea of Schrodinger. See here

Gribbin’s coup is to trace the origins of what is now called the Many-Worlds Interpretation to a lecture delivered by Schrödinger in Dublin in 1952, some five years before a paper by Hugh Everett more usually credited with the idea. However, as Gribbin also notes, quantum effects may flow into the past as well as into the future, so perhaps Schrödinger’s early espousal of multiple worlds is actual proof that time travel exists.​

And Henderson was talking about environments, like the necessity of water for life and how rare that seemed in the universe, not the forces of physics. Environments being rare can be explained away simply by the massiveness of the universe. It really is stupidly big. And we have detected planets with water already, so Henderson's theory is debunked. Any talk of physical constants and equations didn't happen until after multi world interpretation already existed. This multi-worlds theory is the one that counters the Fine-Tuning argument.

The point though, is that the theory wasn't crafted as a response to fine-tuning. It came up all on its own thanks to math!

 

[quatona]

Appearance of design either is actual design or there is another reason for the appearance of design that explains design better.

You would have to explain how you get from (1) to "appearance of design".

 

[KCfromNC]

If people have to claim that the evidence of design in things is an illusion, I think that looks more like an exercise in wish fulfillment than dealing with facts.

Any reason you'd think that, or is it just something you take on faith?

 

[KCfromNC]

I told you they come to that conclusion by the evidence that I supplied to you.

Funny, last time I asked you said that evidence was an answer to a question I never asked.

When did I say anything about my conclusion having nothing to do or to do with religious preferences? Making things up now?

Nope. I'd bother tracking it down but every time I've done so in the past you've ignore those posts. Not going to waste my time on made up accusations you don't have the courage to back up.

 

[bhsmte]

Any reason you'd think that, or is it just something you take on faith?

I have found, that some Christians, just can't acknowledge what they believe is based on faith. They seem to have a strong need to convince themselves, they have objective evidence to support their beliefs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Everett came up with the theory from an idea of Schrodinger. See here

Gribbin’s coup is to trace the origins of what is now called the Many-Worlds Interpretation to a lecture delivered by Schrödinger in Dublin in 1952, some five years before a paper by Hugh Everett more usually credited with the idea. However, as Gribbin also notes, quantum effects may flow into the past as well as into the future, so perhaps Schrödinger’s early espousal of multiple worlds is actual proof that time travel exists.​

And Henderson was talking about environments, like the necessity of water for life and how rare that seemed in the universe, not the forces of physics. Environments being rare can be explained away simply by the massiveness of the universe. It really is stupidly big. And we have detected planets with water already, so Henderson's theory is debunked. Any talk of physical constants and equations didn't happen until after multi world interpretation already existed. This multi-worlds theory is the one that counters the Fine-Tuning argument.

The point though, is that the theory wasn't crafted as a response to fine-tuning. It came up all on its own thanks to math!

The point is that the math might have supported that option but not until fine tuning was it taken seriously.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You would have to explain how you get from (1) to "appearance of design".

IF something has the appearance of design (it looks like someone designed it)the most plausible explanation is that it is designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Any reason you'd think that, or is it just something you take on faith?

We recognize design by how we as intelligent beings design, it is obvious that if something has the appearance of someone designing that to claim it is just an illusion without any evidence that would support that view is wishful thinking.