Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

Did they have access to another universe?

So you want to remain using an argument from ignorance then...that is your problem.

Nope.

Most certainly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Christian theology is one of many theologies that has no objective evidence to support whether it is true, so being consistent with it is really meaningless, unless one is relying on pure faith.

There is evidence to support that it is true, however, those who hold to a purely naturalistic worldview do not come to the same conclusions that do theists about that evidence.

So, you keep mentioning how the TOE is dependent on life, I am simply saying, fine tuning is dependent on a tuner. Assuming (and it is a big assumption) that fine tuning did happen, what is your evidence of the tuner?[/quote]

Actually fine tuning according to the scientific terminology and context does not require a tuner per se but they know they need to find an explanation thus...multiverse.

 

[bhsmte]

There is evidence to support that it is true, however, those who hold to a purely naturalistic worldview do not come to the same conclusions that do theists about that evidence.

So, you keep mentioning how the TOE is dependent on life, I am simply saying, fine tuning is dependent on a tuner. Assuming (and it is a big assumption) that fine tuning did happen, what is your evidence of the tuner?

Actually fine tuning according to the scientific terminology and context does not require a tuner per se but they know they need to find an explanation thus...multiverse.[/QUOTE]

Are you going by the above then? Tuning does not require a tuner? If so, how did this tuning take place, without a tuner?

If you claim there is a tuner, what is your evidence of who the tuner specifically was?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually fine tuning according to the scientific terminology and context does not require a tuner per se but they know they need to find an explanation thus...multiverse.

Are you going by the above then? Tuning does not require a tuner? If so, how did this tuning take place, without a tuner?

If you claim there is a tuner, what is your evidence of who the tuner specifically was?[/quote]

The fact that you make the claim that if there is fine tuning there must be a tuner supports my position. Fine tuning is real. IF Fine Tuning then Tuner is a reasonable and rational conclusion. You are making my point beautifully.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you going by the above then? Tuning does not require a tuner? If so, how did this tuning take place, without a tuner?

If you claim there is a tuner, what is your evidence of who the tuner specifically was?

The fact that you make the claim that if there is fine tuning there must be a tuner supports my position. Fine tuning is real. IF Fine Tuning then Tuner is a reasonable and rational conclusion. You are making my point beautifully.[/QUOTE]

You didn't answer my question.

You made a statement that science doesn't claim there needs to be a tuner for fine tuning to take place.

Do you agree with the above, or do you believe there was a tuner (of course, assuming tuning took place)?

Sorry, I didn't claim there was a tuner, I was simply asking you to clarify your position. Nice try though.

If it is your position there is a fine tuner, what is your evidence of who specifically this tuner was?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn't answer my question.

You made a statement that science doesn't claim there needs to be a tuner for fine tuning to take place.

That is the claim. They think that there can and will be a naturalistic explanation for why the universe is so precisely fine tuned.

Do you agree with the above, or do you believe there was a tuner (of course, assuming tuning took place)?

Now you asked what I believe and what I believe is that of course there was a fine tuner and that it was the Christian God. That is my belief. My belief is supported by the evidence of fine tuning in our universe. The evidence is the evidence and then people come to conclusions based on what they believe about that evidence.

Fine tuning is real and the majority of those in the field agree.

Sorry, I didn't claim there was a tuner, I was simply asking you to clarify your position. Nice try though.

You said:

Are you going by the above then? Tuning does not require a tuner? If so, how did this tuning take place, without a tuner?

As you can see, the fact that the universe is fine tuned leads one to conclude that a tuner was required. The Scientists feel that God is not an answer they wish to entertain and so they look to the multiverse to explain it. Fine tuning creates the appearance that it was an intent by an agent for a purpose. So it is a reasonable and rational conclusion to come to. You too see that if tuning has taken place that the most reasonable conclusion is that a tuner did it.

If it is your position there is a fine tuner, what is your evidence of who specifically this tuner was?

The evidence does not identify the tuner, however, it is more cohesive and within the theology of Christianity to identify the tuner as the Christian God.

 

[Davian]

So you want to remain using an argument from ignorance then...that is your problem.

Back to a straw man of my position.

Most certainly.

Keep beating that dead horse, and getting nowhere.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Back to a straw man of my position.

I wasn't aware you had one.

Keep beating that dead horse, and getting nowhere.

Denial gets you nowhere.

 

[bhsmte]

That is the claim. They think that there can and will be a naturalistic explanation for why the universe is so precisely fine tuned.



Now you asked what I believe and what I believe is that of course there was a fine tuner and that it was the Christian God. That is my belief. My belief is supported by the evidence of fine tuning in our universe. The evidence is the evidence and then people come to conclusions based on what they believe about that evidence.

Fine tuning is real and the majority of those in the field agree.


You said:


As you can see, the fact that the universe is fine tuned leads one to conclude that a tuner was required. The Scientists feel that God is not an answer they wish to entertain and so they look to the multiverse to explain it. Fine tuning creates the appearance that it was an intent by an agent for a purpose. So it is a reasonable and rational conclusion to come to. You too see that if tuning has taken place that the most reasonable conclusion is that a tuner did it.



The evidence does not identify the tuner, however, it is more cohesive and within the theology of Christianity to identify the tuner as the Christian God.

How exactly, does me asking you how tuning happened without a tuner coincide with me stating a tuner was necessary?

Cohesive is nice and all and provides comfort, but where is the evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How exactly, does me asking you how tuning happened without a tuner coincide with me stating a tuner was necessary?

If I have misunderstood please explain what you meant. Asking how fine tuning happened without a tuner implied to me that you felt there was the need.

Cohesive is nice and all and provides comfort, but where is the evidence?

Science is nice and all and provides answers but what about truth? Science doesn't necessarily give truth. Cohesiveness lends itself more about truth and reality. However, what evidence are you wanting?

 

[Delphiki]

That is the claim. They think that there can and will be a naturalistic explanation for why the universe is so precisely fine tuned.

Since everything ever explained through evidence has been shown to have a natural explanation, it's durrently the default position. Anything else (i.e. the supernatural) would have to be proven somehow in order to even consider it as a possibility. And since "supernatural" means "above natural", I can only wish you good luck in your fruitless endeavor at producing evidence for it in a natural universe.

Considering the very infinitesimal space in the universe where all known 7 billion human beings exist, and considering the violent hostility of the vast majority of the universe, it would suggest that the universe is not fine tuned at all. In fact, it would suggest that life is simply persistent in harsh environments.

You have no base for the claim that the universe is "fine tuned" for life. For starters, it's a logical impossibility to exist in a universe as a human in a universe that simply doesn't allow for life outright.

Why would people die of natural causes in a universe "fine tuned" for life?

 

[bhsmte]

If I have misunderstood please explain what you meant. Asking how fine tuning happened without a tuner implied to me that you felt there was the need.

I was asking you to clarify your position and asked you a question. I understand it helps you to assume I have a certain position, but I never established a position and this is especially true, when I make it clear I am assuming tuning did happen.

Science is nice and all and provides answers but what about truth? Science doesn't necessarily give truth. Cohesiveness lends itself more about truth and reality. However, what evidence are you wanting?

Cohesiveness lends itself to truth? Cohesiveness of one's beliefs does bring comfort and comfort can be quite compelling.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since everything ever explained through evidence has been shown to have a natural explanation, it's durrently the default position. Anything else (i.e. the supernatural) would have to be proven somehow in order to even consider it as a possibility. And since "supernatural" means "above natural", I can only wish you good luck in your fruitless endeavor at producing evidence for it in a natural universe.

We know that something "outside of our universe" must explain ours. The natural universe and natural occurring phenomena is not possible to explain it. Even if a multiverse were used to explain it and it being a purely natural explanation has no observational evidence for it. So both positions as far as the universe goes have no observational observation.

Considering the very infinitesimal space in the universe where all known 7 billion human beings exist, and considering the violent hostility of the vast majority of the universe, it would suggest that the universe is not fine tuned at all. In fact, it would suggest that life is simply persistent in harsh environments.

This is an argument Myers made as well, I'll let Luke Barnes explain:

this is a complete non-sequitur. Suppose I claimed that in the space of possible arrangements of metal and plastic, the set of functioning automobiles is vanishingly small. There are many ways to make a car, but vastly more ways to make a pile of rubbish. Could this claim be refuted by complaining that my car doesn’t go very fast? Or that you think you could make a better car? Or that 99% of all the cars ever made no longer work? Or the possibility of aeroplanes? Myers apparently believes that a universe can only be fine-tuned if it is crammed full of life, from end to end and from start to finish. Every criticism of this universe by Myers backfires. Life is delicate and fragile – precisely! The fragility of life supports the claim that life is very choosy about where it can form and live. If you understand why life cannot exist in frigid, dilute space, then you understand why life cannot exist in a universe in which the “lumpiness” parameter (Q) is 0.000001 (rather than 0.00001 in our universe), because in such a universe there is only frigid, dilute space. (If Q is 0.0001, you get frigid, dilute space interspersed with black holes). The same would be true if the density of the universe at the Planck time were reduced by 1 part in

, or if the cosmological constant were larger by 1 part in

of its natural range. Or if gravity were too weak to form matter into galaxies, stars, planets and people. Or if stars simply collapsed when they ran out of fuel (rather than exploding in supernovae), swallowing the elements they produced into neutron stars or black holes. I could go on.
Once again, Myers puts his ignorance on parade. We know why the universe is so large and dilute. John Barrow puts it quite nicely in his book “The World Within The World” (see also this article; John Wheeler makes exactly the same point in his outstanding “At Home in the Universe”):

A Universe that contained just one galaxy like our own Milky Way, with its 100 billion stars, each perhaps surrounded by planetary systems, might seem a reasonable economy if one were in the universal construction business. But such a universe, with more than a 100 billion fewer galaxies than our own, could have expanded for little more than a few months. It could have produced neither stars nor biological elements. It could contain no astronomers.
​

We know why it takes so long for life to appear in the universe – it takes billions of years for stars to form the necessary elements, and for these elements to collect into planets. It takes stars billions of years to form the elements because they are the energy source for life and thus need to be very stable. Paradoxical as it seems, endless expanses of frigid nothingness are necessary for a universe to be old enough for life to develop.


And:



Let’s summarise: it is painfully, embarrassingly obvious that Myers has never seriously investigated the fine-tuning of the universe for life. When he isn’t aiming his riposte at a straw man, he’s passing judgment on whole of theoretical physics. He criticises features of our universe without which he would not exist and asks rhetorical questions that were answered long ago. Not content with merely demonstrating his ignorance, Myers proceeds to parade it as if it were a counterargument, allowing him to dismiss some of the finest physicists, astronomers, cosmologists and biologists of our time as “self-delusional”. When Myers can show that he has taken them seriously, we might just start to take him seriously.

Fishing while the world burns: A Fine-Tuned Critique of P.Z. Myers | Letters to Nature

You have no base for the claim that the universe is "fine tuned" for life. For starters, it's a logical impossibility to exist in a universe as a human in a universe that simply doesn't allow for life outright.

See above.

Why would people die of natural causes in a universe "fine tuned" for life?

Non-sequitur

 

[Smidlee]

But you are on it. How does it work? Do the results rise above chance and confirmation bias? Is it limited by your imagination?

Just like the internet you need the correct software.

 

[bhsmte]

Just like the internet you need the correct software.

What software would that be and why doesn't everyone have it?

 

[Smidlee]

Did they have access to another universe?

.

Isn't this the same as saying we haven't meet any space aliens yet so we couldn't tell if a signal from space came from another intelligent life form?

What software would that be and why doesn't everyone have it?

Do I have to do all the thinking for you?

 

[Davian]

Just like the internet you need the correct software.

How does it work? Do the results rise above chance and confirmation bias? Is it limited by your imagination?

 

[Davian]

Isn't this the same as saying we haven't meet any space aliens yet so we couldn't tell if a signal from space came from another intelligent life form?

No.

 

[Smidlee]

No.

Why not? We are using what we know is true about a fine-tuned signal , and search if we can find any in space without ever meeting an alien. Even if we can't decode it we should be able to determine if it's fine tuned or not.

 

[Loudmouth]

We know that something "outside of our universe" must explain ours. The natural universe and natural occurring phenomena is not possible to explain it.

Evidence?

Even if a multiverse were used to explain it and it being a purely natural explanation has no observational evidence for it. So both positions as far as the universe goes have no observational observation.

Then you reject both of them until evidence is presented?

this is a complete non-sequitur. Suppose I claimed that in the space of possible arrangements of metal and plastic, the set of functioning automobiles is vanishingly small. There are many ways to make a car, but vastly more ways to make a pile of rubbish. Could this claim be refuted by complaining that my car doesn’t go very fast? Or that you think you could make a better car? Or that 99% of all the cars ever made no longer work? Or the possibility of aeroplanes? Myers apparently believes that a universe can only be fine-tuned if it is crammed full of life, from end to end and from start to finish. Every criticism of this universe by Myers backfires. Life is delicate and fragile – precisely! The fragility of life supports the claim that life is very choosy about where it can form and live. If you understand why life cannot exist in frigid, dilute space, then you understand why life cannot exist in a universe in which the “lumpiness” parameter (Q) is 0.000001 (rather than 0.00001 in our universe), because in such a universe there is only frigid, dilute space. (If Q is 0.0001, you get frigid, dilute space interspersed with black holes). The same would be true if the density of the universe at the Planck time were reduced by 1 part in

, or if the cosmological constant were larger by 1 part in

of its natural range. Or if gravity were too weak to form matter into galaxies, stars, planets and people. Or if stars simply collapsed when they ran out of fuel (rather than exploding in supernovae), swallowing the elements they produced into neutron stars or black holes. I could go on.
Once again, Myers puts his ignorance on parade. We know why the universe is so large and dilute. John Barrow puts it quite nicely in his book “The World Within The World” (see also this article; John Wheeler makes exactly the same point in his outstanding “At Home in the Universe&#8221:

A Universe that contained just one galaxy like our own Milky Way, with its 100 billion stars, each perhaps surrounded by planetary systems, might seem a reasonable economy if one were in the universal construction business. But such a universe, with more than a 100 billion fewer galaxies than our own, could have expanded for little more than a few months. It could have produced neither stars nor biological elements. It could contain no astronomers.
​

We know why it takes so long for life to appear in the universe – it takes billions of years for stars to form the necessary elements, and for these elements to collect into planets. It takes stars billions of years to form the elements because they are the energy source for life and thus need to be very stable. Paradoxical as it seems, endless expanses of frigid nothingness are necessary for a universe to be old enough for life to develop.


And:



Let’s summarise: it is painfully, embarrassingly obvious that Myers has never seriously investigated the fine-tuning of the universe for life. When he isn’t aiming his riposte at a straw man, he’s passing judgment on whole of theoretical physics. He criticises features of our universe without which he would not exist and asks rhetorical questions that were answered long ago. Not content with merely demonstrating his ignorance, Myers proceeds to parade it as if it were a counterargument, allowing him to dismiss some of the finest physicists, astronomers, cosmologists and biologists of our time as “self-delusional”. When Myers can show that he has taken them seriously, we might just start to take him seriously.

Fishing while the world burns: A Fine-Tuned Critique of P.Z. Myers | Letters to Nature




See above.


Non-sequitur

Can you please explain why God could not have created our solar system, as we see it now? All of these finely balanced this or that for the whole universe are completely unnecessary.