The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

So moving forward we are talking about an unknown intelligent something that created the uinverse? Meaning the only two properties we know beyond that it exists in some sense, are that this thing is intelligent (how do we define this?) and can create universes?

I think it would be better said that the identity of the Intelligent Designer is unidentified. While there is no sign hanging on the universe to claim its creator, there are predictions made concerning the Biblical God and how that fits with the evidence we find.

Are you granting my objection to premise 1?

P1:

Life as we know it requires a universe with an extremely narrow set of values for a number of parameters and properties.

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.
So you are objecting to these now?

I though you might go there. ..
Frst though let me point out that my objection to premise 2 did not require future models to be successful because on the multi and mega verse hypotheses the fine tuning we observe has a probability approaching 1.0
Now back to future models. Let's go back to a time before we knew how rainbows are formed. Maybe two people were debating how they are formed. They observe the data and present two hypotheses. One is that leprechauns paint the rainbows and the other is that God makes them. Just because the leprechaun theory is incorrect does not mean that the god hypothesis is any more correct. As it turns out there was another, yet to be discovered, theory that involved light refracting in water that made better sense of the observations.

Yes, but if the speed of light was not fine tuned we would not be here to observe them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He is thought, this is why we have a memorial tomb, in our hopes that God will remember us. Only energy can neither be created or destroyed - but has always just existed. It is energy that makes our thoughts possible. It is energy from which all things are, is in all things, and to which all things will return. Since we are mind as well, it is only natural that we could eventually comprehend what Mind made.

Ok.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have no reason to assume they can be. Hence, it's an unsupported assertion. A logical fallacy. That's why fine tuning fails right out of the gate.

Ok. So you are one that disagrees with the consensus of experts who claim that fine tuning is real and the evidence shows it is. You see you keep denying what the scientists claim, and then get upset when I say you are denying it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know of no evidence that implies more than one. What is quite certain is that the evidence is that there is at least one. If you wish to restrict that merely to "one" you need to show evidence that excludes, for example, "two".

I believe it would be the one claiming there is more than one to provide evidence of that.

 

[AirPo]

Ok. So you are one that disagrees with the consensus of experts who claim that fine tuning is real and the evidence shows it is. You see you keep denying what the scientists claim, and then get upset when I say you are denying it.

They don't think your idea of "fine tuning" is real. It's someone else who is getting upset when shown to be wrong.

 

[AirPo]

I believe it would be the one claiming there is more than one to provide evidence of that.

The irony.

 

[Athée]

So back a few pages you wrote this, introducing a set of new premises .

An example: You are walking along the beach and you come to some pebbles and those pebbles are piled in groups that spell out Welcome Athee. Now the pebbles could have naturally been arranged by the ocean and principles of ocean currents or they might have been arranged by your wife who walked there previously. Which is more probable? It seems that it is highly improbable that they would be arranged in this way by chance and the second hypothesis which would be your wife arranging them that way would be much more probable. So the observation is better explained by one hypothesis over the other.

So:

Premise 1. The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

Premise 2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis or which ever you choose.

Conclusion: From premises (1) and (2) and the prime principle of confirmation, it follows that the fine-tuning data provides strong evidence to favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

How does this look to you?

My objections were in response to those two things that you added not to thexceed initial list of premises.

I think it would be better said that the identity of the Intelligent Designer is unidentified.

OK. Are you going to assert that we know anything about this thing beyond that it exists, it can create universe's and is intelligent (still awaiting your definition of intelligent as it applies to this unknown universe creating force?

 

[Oncedeceived]

They don't think your idea of "fine tuning" is real. It's smoeone else who is getting upset when shown to be wrong.

Let me see if I can clear this up once and for all. Fine Tuning is not a term made up by the theists. It is a term created by scientists, a label they created for the phenomena they observe. My idea of fine tuning is not any different than any of the scientists that have provided the data about it. Fine tuning is the phenomena, the facts that we know about the universe. They themselves believe there is no reason to believe that the fine tuned constants could not be something different. This is not something I or any other theist "made up". Ok? Fine tuning is a scientific term for a real phenomena.

Now there are explanations that scientist, theists and the unreligious have to explain said phenomena. Evidence vs. Explanation. Do we have it straight now?

 

[Picky Picky]

I believe it would be the one claiming there is more than one to provide evidence of that.

But I don't claim there is more than one.

Here are two propositions:

(A) There is one universe

(B) There is at least one universe.

I claim that the evidence supports proposition (B).

What do you claim, and why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So back a few pages you wrote this, introducing a set of new premises .

Ok, that is fine. The point behind them is whether theism or atheistic natural explanations are more probable as explanation, is that something you can get behind.

My objections were in response to those two things that you added not to thexceed initial list of premises.

Gottcha.

OK. Are you going to assert that we know anything about this thing beyond that it exists, it can create universe's and is intelligent (still awaiting your definition of intelligent as it applies to this unknown universe creating force?

So we are going to go the semantics way? Define God, Define Intelligence, Define Fine Tuned, Define universe, Define creating force and on?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But I don't claim there is more than one.

Here are two propositions:

(A) There is one universe

(B) There is at least one universe.

I claim that the evidence supports proposition (B).

What do you claim, and why?

I have no problem with proposition (B), but if someone wants to claim there is more than one the evidence would be needed to show there could be more than one.

 

[Picky Picky]

I have no problem with proposition (B), but if someone wants to claim there is more than one the evidence would be needed to show there could be more than one.

OK. So the stuff about there needing to be trillions upon trillions of universes to produce one like the one we live in (apart from that being nonsense, since actually there needs only to be one — the one like the one we live in) why is that a problem, since you have no problem with the idea that there may be trillions upon trillions of universes?

 

[Athée]

Ok, that is fine. The point behind them is whether theism or atheistic natural explanations are more probable as explanation, is that something you can get behind.

Ina generally sense yes. There's observable data and we advance models to explain it, then we test the models etc.
Obviously though I raised objections to each of the premises that you included there and therfore I obviously reject the conclusion as well.

So we are going to go the semantics way? Define God, Define Intelligence, Define Fine Tuned, Define universe, Define creating force and on?

Not sure why defining terms merits a sad face...I'm making sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm just asking if those three qualities are all that you want to start with or if you wanted to aerrdd anything. The reason I asked you to define intelligence is because I only know how to make sense of intelligence in relation to concious, sentient creatures. So if you want to add intelligence to the list of properties of this unknown force then it seems you are necessarily saying that it is a concious sentient being which is very different from an impersonal universe creating force.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK. So the stuff about there needing to be trillions upon trillions of universes to produce one like the one we live in (apart from that being nonsense, since actually there needs only to be one — the one like the one we live in) why is that a problem, since you have no problem with the idea that there may be trillions upon trillions of universes?

I don't necessarily believe that there is more than one universe, there could be but nothing points to any others. Secular scientists have decided that due to our universe being so fine tuned the only feasible explanation is that there are other universes out there that make ours go from highly unlikely/improbable to not surprising. The kicker is that there has to be infinite universes for ours to have the life permitting parameters that ours does.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ina generally sense yes. There's observable data and we advance models to explain it, then we test the models etc.
Obviously though I raised objections to each of the premises that you included there and therfore I obviously reject the conclusion as well.

Alright then.

Not sure why defining terms merits a sad face...I'm making sure we are talking about the same thing. I'm just asking if those three qualities are all that you want to start with or if you wanted to aerrdd anything. The reason I asked you to define intelligence is because I only know how to make sense of intelligence in relation to concious, sentient creatures. So if you want to add intelligence to the list of properties of this unknown force then it seems you are necessarily saying that it is a concious sentient being which is very different from an impersonal universe creating force.

Previous tactics of others merits the sad face. Sorry I jumped to conclusions. So yes, when we say Intelligent Designer we are implying conscious sentient Being with intelligence such as ours but of course much more intelligent than we are.

 

[Picky Picky]

I don't necessarily believe that there is more than one universe, there could be but nothing points to any others. Secular scientists have decided that due to our universe being so fine tuned the only feasible explanation is that there are other universes out there that make ours go from highly unlikely/improbable to not surprising. The kicker is that there has to be infinite universes for ours to have the life permitting parameters that ours does.

Your last sentence shows the basic error of your position. The qualities of our universe cannot depend on how many other universes there are. If our universe can exist as one among many, it can exist as one on its own.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have no reason to assume they can be. Hence, it's an unsupported assertion. A logical fallacy. That's why fine tuning fails right out of the gate.

Except I have every reason to assume they can be and are. We call them laws of physics because they hold true every single time we check them. So which is it, are the laws of physics not valid or so fine tuned we can count on them every day? You can't have it both ways, regardless of how much you might wish it to be so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your last sentence shows the basic error of your position. The qualities of our universe cannot depend on how many other universes there are. If our universe can exist as one among many, it can exist as one on its own.

I'm not sure what you mean. If it can "exist" we know that it couldn't exist at all if certain elements were not precisely the way they are. So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't necessarily believe that there is more than one universe, there could be but nothing points to any others. Secular scientists have decided that due to our universe being so fine tuned the only feasible explanation is that there are other universes out there that make ours go from highly unlikely/improbable to not surprising. The kicker is that there has to be infinite universes for ours to have the life permitting parameters that ours does.

Are these the same scientists that told us the milky-Way was the entire universe? Is this hypothesis in the same vein as that one?

Or is it that the odds of life developing from non-life are so astronomical that you will accept any theory at all to lessen the odds against it occurring randomly? I guess we can claim there are a billion other universes all we like, but if there is no proof that any but this one exists, they smack of religious fever don't they? After all, isn't it lack of proof that is your biggest objection to believing in God, yet you will accept impossible probabilities as certainties without even a hint that they might exist. A little hypocritical in my book, but hey, to each his own. Now arguing the exact opposite position you take when discussing whether God exists or not, rejecting the same arguments against multiple universes you use to object to the existence of a Higher Being. I'm no longer sure what you guy's position is anymore, it wavers back and forth so often.

Weren't you just arguing a moment ago that there was only one universe?????

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are these the same scientists that told us the milky-Way was the entire universe? Is this hypothesis in the same vein as that one?

Or is it that the odds of life developing from non-life are so astronomical that you will accept any theory at all to lessen the odds against it occurring randomly? I guess we can claim there are a billion other universes all we like, but if there is no proof that any but this one exists, they smack of religious fever don't they? After all, isn't it lack of proof that is your biggest objection to believing in God, yet you will accept impossible probabilities as certainties without even a hint that they might exist. A little hypocritical in my book, but hey, to each his own. Now arguing the exact opposite position you take when discussing whether God exists or not, rejecting the same arguments against multiple universes you use to object to the existence of a Higher Being. I'm no longer sure what you guy's position is anymore, it wavers back and forth so often.

Hey man you are singing to the choir.