The fine tuning of the universe.

[AirPo]

It's like watching the same episode of Gilligan's Island for the 35th time.

Couldn't you have said Big Bang Theory at least?

 

[Oncedeceived]

 

[Athée]

. The information is peer-reviewed and there is something like 200 papers that I am aware of that substantiate the fine tuning of the universe and the improbability of it.

Could you pick your favorite and send me a link. As I said I have not done a ton of reading in this area. Thanks!

We can't "create" an actual alternate universe but we can do a model which really "exists" in for and structure by way of the changes.

Not entirely sure what that last phrase meant but in general I would say that a model is a hypothetical. When you change a parameter in a model your otput depends on having correctly programed all the relationships between all the variables. We don't know all the relationships.

Ok, fair enough. So that leads us to two options:
1. The universe was created by chance.
2. The universe was created on purpose.

Scientists have claimed that the universe was not created by chance so it must have been on purpose. Do you agree?

Not to be critical but this is, I think, then kind of thing that others are criticizing on this thread. The way you wrote this it looks like you are outright claiming the majoroty of scientists assert that the universe could not be a chance event and therfore they think it was created the way it is on purpose.

Maybe we could advance the discussion if we reword premise PA2 to say:
The universe exists values in a narrow range that are currently unexplained by science.
Thoughts?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is stupid. I am sure that Hitch and Airpo, you both feel strongly that there is no God and you have made this decision based on what you feel is very compelling reasons. I doubt that you would find it very convincing that someone understood evolution if they were to say to you something like....how could we have evolved from monkeys if there are still monkeys around? Or...there is absolutely NO evidence for evolution, none nada nothing. Remarks like these show these people do not understand what evolution is, what it means or how it works.

I am observing from the comments in this thread that this is not just a tactic of anti-science theists but a equally maddening trend here. I know that you both are not stupid and are intelligent rational people but when God is in the picture you seem to lose that rational nature. But if you deny a well-corroborated scientific principle — no matter what it is — it's a pretty good indication..... You're misinformed, but not stupid; or you understand the topic and don't like the interpretations based on it.

I would really like for us to go forward without all this hoopla and discuss this like rational and mature individuals even if we disagree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could you pick your favorite and send me a link. As I said I have not done a ton of reading in this area. Thanks!

Sure, what type of paper are you interested in reading?

Not entirely sure what that last phrase meant but in general I would say that a model is a hypothetical. When you change a parameter in a model your otput depends on having correctly programed all the relationships between all the variables. We don't know all the relationships.

I'll again use the example of the nuclear force; if it were smaller or larger regardless of the relationships of others no atoms would exist. The hypothetical universes use this type of data to determine the affects if these values were changed. It is through data that is known that they work out the hypothetical outcomes.

Not to be critical but this is, I think, then kind of thing that others are criticizing on this thread.

Interesting.

The way you wrote this it looks like you are outright claiming the majoroty of scientists assert that the universe could not be a chance event and therfore they think it was created the way it is on purpose.

I wasn't talking about scientists at all, so why would you assume that I implied they assert anything of the sort? I have in several posts made it clear that the majority of scientists DO NOT think "GODDIDIT". What others in this thread are doing is not criticizing but are making false accusations and using ad hominem arguments.

YOU were the one that claimed if the universe was not created by chance that it had to be on purpose. Do you remember or do I need to go back and get the quote? So now you somehow believe that I am claiming that scientists assert design purpose behind the fine tuning? How does that work? Where did I even hint of such a claim?

Maybe we could advance the discussion if we reword premise PA2 to say:
The universe exists values in a narrow range that are currently unexplained by science.
Thoughts?

I don't know if you want to know my thoughts right now.

 

[Athée]

Sure, what type of paper are you interested in reading?

One of the 200 or so that talk about this fine tuning that we are discussing, I'm not sure exactly but something you find representitive.

I'll again use the example of the nuclear force; if it were smaller or larger regardless of the relationships of others no atoms would exist. The hypothetical universes use this type of data to determine the affects if these values were changed. It is through data that is known that they work out the hypothetical outcome

I think this makes sense. You are saying that even though we don't know all the relationships we do know enough about some of then to say with confidence what the result would be and in many/most instances the result would be no universe or no life as we know it. Is that right?

Interesting

Yah a pretty terrible sentence by me for starters.

I wasn't talking about scientists at all, so why would you assume that I implied they assert anything of the sort? I have in several posts made it clear that the majority of scientists DO NOT think "GODDIDIT". What others in this thread are doing is not criticizing but are making false accusations and using ad hominem arguments.

I am certainly not trying to make an ad hominem attack so I will provide the quote as requested:

Scientists have claimed that the universe was not created by chance so it must have been on purpose. Do you agree?

I think what you meant to say was "scientists generally believe that random chance is not a good explanation for the narrow range of values we observe in our universe (multiverse and mega verse hypotheses notwithstanding ). I belive that if chance is not a good explanation, then we can say that purpose is a better explanation. Do you agree?"

Or something like that anyway, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I don't know if you want to know my thoughts right now.

Fair enough, I see that others on the thread are frustrated with your responses and have resorted to making derogatory remarks. Keep your head up and keep being polite. I am actually really enjoying this discussion and even though we get bogged down trying to work though a lot of this stuff, I appreciate that you are willing to discuss your beliefs and that you keep the tone positive

 

[[serious]]

One quick note, once has been positing that things must be either due to random chance or due to design. However, there is a third option. Things can be deterministic. For example, if a tree falls in the forest, it falls down, never up.

 

[AirPo]

This is stupid. I am sure that Hitch and Airpo, you both feel strongly that there is no God and you have made this decision based on what you feel is very compelling reasons.

Well this is just dripping in projection.

I doubt that you would find it very convincing that someone understood evolution if they were to say to you something like....how could we have evolved from monkeys if there are still monkeys around? Or...there is absolutely NO evidence for evolution, none nada nothing. Remarks like these show these people do not understand what evolution is, what it means or how it works.

That makes sense since comments like "how could we have evolved from monkeys if there are still monkeys around?" does show that someone does not understand evolution. But that's just stating the obvious.

I am observing from the comments in this thread that this is not just a tactic of anti-science theists but a equally maddening trend here. I know that you both are not stupid and are intelligent rational people but when God is in the picture you seem to lose that rational nature.

More projection.

But if you deny a well-corroborated scientific principle — no matter what it is — it's a pretty good indication..... You're misinformed, but not stupid; or you understand the topic and don't like the interpretations based on it.

Not denyiny anything, just not accecpting your incorrect interpretation of it.

I would really like for us to go forward without all this hoopla and discuss this like rational and mature individuals even if we disagree.

Then start being rational.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One of the 200 or so that talk about this fine tuning that we are discussing, I'm not sure exactly but something you find representitive.

The one I gave you I think is the most up to date and Luke Barnes is at the top of the heap as far as fine tuning is concerned. I will give you one here that is considered very good and Carr is the one that everyone recognizes in fine tuning.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.278..605C

I think this makes sense. You are saying that even though we don't know all the relationships we do know enough about some of then to say with confidence what the result would be and in many/most instances the result would be no universe or no life as we know it. Is that right?

That is exactly right!!!! Kudos.

I am certainly not trying to make an ad hominem attack so I will provide the quote as requested:

I think what you meant to say was "scientists generally believe that random chance is not a good explanation for the narrow range of values we observe in our universe (multiverse and mega verse hypotheses notwithstanding ). I belive that if chance is not a good explanation, then we can say that purpose is a better explanation. Do you agree?"

Well there ya go, rational response and you provided a quote so I can understand how I was misunderstood. I can totally understand how one would think I was saying that now. My mistake, you are right on with what I meant. Thank you for pointing that out and bringing it to my attention.

Or something like that anyway, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Not at all. Thank you for rationally showing me the problem rather than just claiming I was doing something I knew I wasn't doing.

Fair enough, I see that others on the thread are frustrated with your responses and have resorted to making derogatory remarks. Keep your head up and keep being polite. I am actually really enjoying this discussion and even though we get bogged down trying to work though a lot of this stuff, I appreciate that you are willing to discuss your beliefs and that you keep the tone positive

Thanks so do I.

 

[Oncedeceived]

One quick note, once has been positing that things must be either due to random chance or due to design. However, there is a third option. Things can be deterministic. For example, if a tree falls in the forest, it falls down, never up.

Right, necessity. I was commenting about what Athee had said in regard to if not chance then purpose.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well this is just dripping in projection.

No, just honestly what I felt.

That makes sense since comments like "how could we have evolved from monkeys if there are still monkeys around?" does show that someone does understand evolution. But that's just stating the obvious.

What? Are you being funny?

More projection.

How is that projection.

Not denyiny anything, just not accecpting your incorrect interpretation of it.

Then why did you say fine tuning is a farce?

Thwn start being rational.

Right.

 

[Athée]

The one I gave you I think is the most up to date and Luke Barnes is at the top of the heap as far as fine tuning is concerned. I will give you one here that is considered very good and Carr is the one that everyone recognizes in fine tuning.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.278..605C


That is exactly right!!!! Kudos.

Well there ya go, rational response and you provided a quote so I can understand how I was misunderstood. I can totally understand how one would think I was saying that now. My mistake, you are right on with what I meant. Thank you for pointing that out and bringing it to my attention.

Not at all. Thank you for rationally showing me the problem rather than just claiming I was doing something I knew I wasn't doing.


Thanks so do I.

So in the interest of moving the discussion along....
Would it work if I grated that:
To the extent that random chance (multiverse and mega verse) hypotheses for the narrow range of values we observe in our universe have not yet met their burden of proof, itenational design remains a valid possible explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Thoughts

 

[Oncedeceived]

So in the interest of moving the discussion along....
Would it work if I grated that:
To the extent that random chance (multiverse and mega verse) hypotheses for the narrow range of values we observe in our universe have not yet met their burden of proof, itenational design remains a valid possible explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Thoughts

Ok. So now we move on to which hypothesis best explains the fine tuning; multiverse/mega verse, or design?

 

[Robert Palase]

Ok. So now we move on to which hypothesis best explains the fine tuning; multiverse/mega verse, or design?

At which point do you think fine tuning points to a supernatural God?

 

[Athée]

Ok. So now we move on to which hypothesis best explains the fine tuning; multiverse/mega verse, or design?

The next premise was:
The will of yaweh is a possible organizing principle.
Which in this instance meant that yaweh's will is a possible explanation for the narrow range of conditions that allowed our universe to form.

I foresee some trouble here because built in to this premise are a few unstated premesis that are problematic.
As I see them, they are.
1. Yaweh exists
2. Yaweh wills things generally
3. Yaweh willed this universe specifically.
4. Yaweh has sufficient power to actuate his will.


All of which could be avoided I suppose if we attach a conditional to it.
If yaweh exists and if he wills things generally and specifically and if he has the power to actuate these willed items then Yaweh's will is a possible explanation for the range of values we observe that allowed our universe to form.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The next premise was:
The will of yaweh is a possible organizing principle.
Which in this instance meant that yaweh's will is a possible explanation for the narrow range of conditions that allowed our universe to form.

I foresee some trouble here because built in to this premise are a few unstated premesis that are problematic.
As I see them, they are.
1. Yaweh exists
2. Yaweh wills things generally
3. Yaweh willed this universe specifically.
4. Yaweh has sufficient power to actuate his will.


All of which could be avoided I suppose if we attach a conditional to it.
If yaweh exists and if he wills things generally and specifically and if he has the power to actuate these willed items then Yaweh's will is a possible explanation for the range of values we observe that allowed our universe to form.

So are you granting these as well?

Yahweh claims (granting his existence)that He created the universe for intelligent beings He wished to create who could comprehend the "heavens" declare His glory. If Yahweh exists the universe should appear designed and we should be able to recognize that design. Thoughts?

 

[Oncedeceived]

At which point do you think fine tuning points to a supernatural God?

I am not sure what you are asking?

 

[Athée]

So are you granting these as well?

Yahweh claims (granting his existence)that He created the universe for intelligent beings He wished to create who could comprehend the "heavens" declare His glory. If Yahweh exists the universe should appear designed and we should be able to recognize that design. Thoughts?

I guess in have to grant that for the sake of the discussion don't I. I could insist that you demonstrate that yaweh exists before allowing you to include him in a premise but we both know that you will not be able to do this. Morover the way you wrote this it seems you want me to grant you the bible as well (yaweh claims that....I assume from the Bible and I assume you want me to accept that the Bible is reliable when it claims that) which I absolutely do not.

I also have to ask what about the universe clearly demonstrates that the god who made it all was Yaweh. Why not Allah, Zeus, Ra or any of the thousands of other proposed gods. What specific feature makes it clear that it was yaweh and not any of the others?

You said the universe should appear designed and that we should be able to recognize the design. I assume here you mean that the uinverse has values that allow it to exist when it needn't have?

 

[[serious]]

The one I gave you I think is the most up to date and Luke Barnes is at the top of the heap as far as fine tuning is concerned. I will give you one here that is considered very good and Carr is the one that everyone recognizes in fine tuning.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.278..605C


That is exactly right!!!! Kudos.

Well there ya go, rational response and you provided a quote so I can understand how I was misunderstood. I can totally understand how one would think I was saying that now. My mistake, you are right on with what I meant. Thank you for pointing that out and bringing it to my attention.

Not at all. Thank you for rationally showing me the problem rather than just claiming I was doing something I knew I wasn't doing.


Thanks so do I.

Ok, in the conclusion of that paper, (p 612) the author identifies 3 failing with the anthropic explanation. Could you paraphrase those for us? (If you haven't read it, don't understand it, or object to the request for any reason I'll do it for you)

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, in the conclusion of that paper, (p 612) the author identifies 3 failing with the anthropic explanation. Could you paraphrase those for us? (If you haven't read it, don't understand it, or object to the request for any reason I'll do it for you)

I provided the paper for information purposes for Athee and wanted it to be a scientific paper. I haven't read it. I was aware of it due to Rees and Carr. From what I have read of both I thought I had a good grasp of what their positions were. What are you referring to and I can read it or I will be glad to have you provide your concern from the paper.