The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

Depends on how you look at it I guess.

Not really. Quote-mining like that and non-responses like this make it pretty clear what's going on.

 

[Athée]

Edited to refelct Once's feedback

P. A.1.For any universe to have a sustained existence it's properties and values must fall in to a very narrow range at its beginning.
Pa2. The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely.
Therefore for the universe to have the values it has there needs to have been an organizing principle.
Pa3. Yahweh's will is a possible organizing principle.
Therfore to the extent that Yaweh's will is a better explanation for the initial conditionsof the universe than other possible hypotheses, the values of the parameters and properties of our universe are evidence that Yaweh exists.

Moreover



P1. Life as we know it requires a universe with an extremely narrow set of values for a number of parameters and properties.
P2. The values (p1) of our universe could have been different.
P3. The probability of the set of values we observe in our universe is too small to resonably be considered a chance occurrence.
Therfore these values (p1) must have some organizing principle (p3).
P4. Yaweh''s will is a possible organizing principle.
P5. Yaweh''s will is the best explanation for the specific values we observe (p1,p3)
Therfore, to the extent that Yaweh's will is a better explnation of the availbe data than competing hypotheses, the observed set of values and properties (p1) is evidence that Yaweh exists.

Is this now more accurate?

If it is perhaps we could begin from the top by supporting PA1 and moving on from there.Although I am willing to grant PA1 so feel free to skip that if you like

 

[Oncedeceived]

Citation needed.

I'll need to go through some info I have for this. I don't have time right now.

And here.

24 seconds in.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not really. Quote-mining like that and non-responses like this make it pretty clear what's going on.

Uh....right....

 

[Oncedeceived]

Edited to refelct Once's feedback

P. A.1.For any universe to have a sustained existence it's properties and values must fall in to a very narrow range at its beginning.
Pa2. The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely.
Therefore for the universe to have the values it has there needs to have been an organizing principle.
Pa3. Yahweh's will is a possible organizing principle.
Therfore to the extent that Yaweh's will is a better explanation for the initial conditionsof the universe than other possible hypotheses, the values of the parameters and properties of our universe are evidence that Yaweh exists.

Moreover



P1. Life as we know it requires a universe with an extremely narrow set of values for a number of parameters and properties.
P2. The values (p1) of our universe could have been different.
P3. The probability of the set of values we observe in our universe is too small to resonably be considered a chance occurrence.
Therfore these values (p1) must have some organizing principle (p3).
P4. Yaweh''s will is a possible organizing principle.
P5. Yaweh''s will is the best explanation for the specific values we observe (p1,p3)
Therfore, to the extent that Yaweh's will is a better explnation of the availbe data than competing hypotheses, the observed set of values and properties (p1) is evidence that Yaweh exists.

Is this now more accurate?

If it is perhaps we could begin from the top by supporting PA1 and moving on from there.Although I am willing to grant PA1 so feel free to skip that if you like

So what is your counter argument?

 

[KCfromNC]

So what is your counter argument?

That only P1 / Pa1 is established by any of the evidence you've mentioned. The rest is unsupported speculation.

 

[Athée]

So what is your counter argument?

My counter argument will depend on what evidence you bring to bear in support of your premises. Maybe you will have such overwhelming evidence that my counter argument will be a rededication to Jesus
I think starting at PA2 would make the most sense so I will look forward to your evidence for that specific premise.

 

[KCfromNC]

Uh....right....

The fact you choose to respond to this post rather than the three asking for specifics is just more confirmation of my working hypothesis here.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'll need to go through some info I have for this. I don't have time right now.

Fair enough, I'll just discount it for now.

24 seconds in.

I meant actual quotes from the people proposing the theory. Surely if it was as important a motivation as you claim it should be all over the work done by whoever it is you are claiming was trying to get rid of god(s) - as if god belief is all that common among physicists anyway.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Assuming these are true, all you have to do is demonstrate that these parameters could have been any different. And if they have, how likely it was they were different enough to matter.

For some reason, you keep declining to do so. Probably because that's an area we're pretty much ignorant of, so anything you'd post would be a mere guess. That's unfortunate for your case, because it reduces what you wish were some sort of logical argument into the realm of opinion and faith.

If we had a reason for the inability for them to be different we wouldn't be considering the issue at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fair enough, I'll just discount it for now.



I meant actual quotes from the people proposing the theory. Surely if it was as important a motivation as you claim it should be all over the work done by whoever it is you are claiming was trying to get rid of god(s) - as if god belief is all that common among physicists anyway.

Ask Paul Davies, he is the one that said it and I said he said it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you actually knew what the probability is, it would be easier to just post it rather than waste everybody's time making up excuses not to.

I've given links. If you find a problem with them then present it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which events are those, specifically, and what are the odds?

If you are not going to read the information I provide, fine but don't keep asking for something I've already provided.

 

[bhsmte]

So you would have no problems going to a doctor that finished last in his class as long as he has a medical license? This does not even get into the number of doctors and nurses that become drug addicts.

Caveat emptor is a Latin term that means "let the buyer beware." Similar to the phrase "sold as is," this term means that the buyer assumes the risk that a product may fail to meet expectations or have defects.

I have been around physicians for over 20 years, on a daily basis. Being board certified in your speciality and having a good medical reputation, far exceeds where they finish in their class rank.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree with Francis Collins science. This is what we should teach in our public schools. A lot more people are accepting of Collins than what are accepting of someone like Kent Hovind.

Unless you are in robust agreement of the science behind the TOE, you do not agree with francis collins.

 

[quatona]

It is relevant,

...and when this relevance was disputed, you responded by saying it weren´t your argument - your argument were a completely different one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My counter argument will depend on what evidence you bring to bear in support of your premises. Maybe you will have such overwhelming evidence that my counter argument will be a rededication to Jesus
I think starting at PA2 would make the most sense so I will look forward to your evidence for that specific premise.

PA2: The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely.

I will provide quotes from scientists in the field about what they think of a chance event.

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” Alan Sandage

“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” Roger Penrose

“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” Ed Harrison

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” Arthur L. Schawlow

Think of it like this: If you were a gambling man and played poker routinely you would know that a royal flush is a winning hand. Now you win once and you get all the pot. No one is going to think that is unusual. Now you win over and over again some thirty times at one sitting, with each win the others get more suspicious until after 30 wins they are done with the suspicion and know full well you must be cheating because no one gets a royal flush 30 consecutively. That is what we see with the fine tuning fundamental constants...too many to believe that it is by chance alone.

 

[Athée]

PA2: The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely.

I will provide quotes from scientists in the field about what they think of a chance event.

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” Alan Sandage

“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” Roger Penrose

“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” Ed Harrison

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” Arthur L. Schawlow

Think of it like this: If you were a gambling man and played poker routinely you would know that a royal flush is a winning hand. Now you win once and you get all the pot. No one is going to think that is unusual. Now you win over and over again some thirty times at one sitting, with each win the others get more suspicious until after 30 wins they are done with the suspicion and know full well you must be cheating because no one gets a royal flush 30 consecutively. That is what we see with the fine tuning fundamental constants...too many to believe that it is by chance alone.

The quotes are interesting to be sure but they are still just opinion. Maybe somewhere these scientists have actual evidence to support their statements of belief and that is what we need to evaluate. If I quote an atheist scientist who said "I think it most probable that no intelligence designed our universe " and provided no further support you would ask me for evidence not just opinion.
As far as I am aware we simply don't know if the values that permit our kind of universe to exist are likely or not. We only have a sample size of 1 and unless you can provide evidence for the multiverse then our universe is all we have. Thus, so far as we know, the chances of a universe having the specific values we observe is 1 in 1.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have been around physicians for over 20 years, on a daily basis. Being board certified in your speciality and having a good medical reputation, far exceeds where they finish in their class rank.

ok if you say so. Just how do we determine how good their reputation is?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Unless you are in robust agreement of the science behind the TOE, you do not agree with francis collins.

I read his whole book which means I do not consider him to be a waste of time. I underline as I go so I know what books I read and what books I have not read. Let me open his book and grab something Collins asks: "If God created the universe, and the laws that govern it, and if He endowed human beings with intellectual abilities to discern it's workings, would God want us to disregard those abilities?"