The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

You think life can't be immaterial?

That's certainly interesting. Wink, wink.

But that's obviously different. Quite obviously. Very different. No explanation needed, of course.

 

[Oncedeceived]

More specifically, it discusses many examples of apparent fine tuning which have natural explanations inherent in how the universe works. In other words, it directly contradicts your claims that fine tuning is the same as improbable. Since you have said you've read the paper there's no point in me posting quotes.

Really, what natural explanations inherent in how the universe works?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Gottcha.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Prove it.

No you didn't. You posted links to random unrelated papers and then changed the subject when challenged to point out how they were in any way related to the question you were attempting to answer.


So provide the links that are not in regard to fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The one I remember was a paper she claimed to read but also didn't know the number of pages it had, so that's seemed a bit suspect as well. It was made even more so when she couldn't even tell us which page she thought we were supposed to look at to find whatever it is she thought it showed.

Which paper did I claim to read but didn't know the number of pages it had?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that she has to try and sneak a neuroscientist in a list of supposed experts on pre-big bang cosmology is a hint that maybe the opinions she's attributing to a vast majority of those scientists aren't quite as widespread as she hopes. If they were, why not just grab more quotes from actual cosmologists?

I gave a link with all the scientists that agree with fine tuning. Stop with the false accusations.

 

[Veera Chase]

Really, what natural explanations inherent in how the universe works?

Really, what godly explanations inherent in how the universe works? GOTTCHA.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really, what godly explanations inherent in how the universe works? GOTTCHA.

Where did I say that in any of the posts in this thread?

 

[KCfromNC]

Really, what natural explanations inherent in how the universe works?

The examples listed in the first few pages of the article. You did read it, right?

 

[KCfromNC]

No you didn't. You posted links to random unrelated papers and then changed the subject when challenged to point out how they were in any way related to the question you were attempting to answer.


So provide the links that are not in regard to fine tuning.

The question wasn't "post something barely related to fine tuning, maybe" so I don't know why you're asking for that. I'll just go ahead and provide an actual answer instead by posting a link to an article you mistakenly thought was somehow related to the probabilities that various constants take on certain values.

Luckily I can save time and answer your next request using the same answer.

Which paper did I claim to read but didn't know the number of pages it had?

Same answer for both:
http://planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013results/Planck_2013_results_16.pdf

For some reason right after "reading" and then posting this you forgot how many pages it had - see post 805 for details :

KC I gave you 64 pages of numbers in it.

None of this is helping your credibility.

 

[KCfromNC]

I gave a link with all the scientists that agree with fine tuning. Stop with the false accusations.

If a half a page of quotes is "all the scientists that agree with fine tuning", my point wasn't false.

 

[HitchSlap]

I guess the problem rests with you then.

Indeed, I have a problem with those who misrepresent the opinions of others to feed their own ego.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The examples listed in the first few pages of the article. You did read it, right?

From that paper, which I had already said I had not read.
The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation. Many interrelations between different scales that at first sight seem surprising are straightforward consequences of simple physical arguments. But several aspects of our Universe—some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life—depend rather delicately on apparent ‘coincidences’ among the physical constants.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If a half a page of quotes is "all the scientists that agree with fine tuning", my point wasn't false.

I gave you a link of all the scientists that agree with it. Here it is again:

Here’s a quote that I wanted to put out there from the paper about how widely accepted fine-tuning is among scientists:

There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. Stenger, on the other hand, claims that the universe is not fine-tuned.

That is a very diverse list. I know that Sandage, Ellis, Page, Tipler and Polkinghorne are theists. But I also know that Weinberg, Rees, Hawking, Greene, and Dawkins are atheists. So scientists all across the spectrum of worldview admit that the fine-tuning is real.

https://winteryknight.com/2015/11/1...or-stengers-critique-of-cosmic-fine-tuning-4/

 

[freezerman2000]

I gave you a link of all the scientists that agree with it. Here it is again:

Here’s a quote that I wanted to put out there from the paper about how widely accepted fine-tuning is among scientists:

There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact. Stenger, on the other hand, claims that the universe is not fine-tuned.

That is a very diverse list. I know that Sandage, Ellis, Page, Tipler and Polkinghorne are theists. But I also know that Weinberg, Rees, Hawking, Greene, and Dawkins are atheists. So scientists all across the spectrum of worldview admit that the fine-tuning is real.

https://winteryknight.com/2015/11/1...or-stengers-critique-of-cosmic-fine-tuning-4/

The link you gave is to a critique..nothing more.
Hawking?I've got his book"A Brief History Of Time" and the way Creationist sites cut up the book is hilarious.
It's called cherry picking.
Richard Dawkin's foundation SLAMS fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ooh, fun with quotes. Can I try?

"This is nonsense, it can't be believed by a thinking person."
C. Hitchens, on the subject of Christianity.

And that quote is not misrepresenting his view and neither are the ones I've provided.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The link you gave is to a critique..nothing more.
Hawking?I've got his book"A Brief History Of Time" and the way Creationist sites cut up the book is hilarious.
It's called cherry picking.
Richard Dawkin's foundation SLAMS fine tuning.

Where is the link that shows Richard Dawkins foundation slams fine tuning?

 

[freezerman2000]

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/11/why-does-the-universe-appear-fine-tuned-for-life/
Go to the bottom of the article and over the comment section to continue with the article.The link to the full essay is small.

 

[Oncedeceived]

https://richarddawkins.net/2013/11/why-does-the-universe-appear-fine-tuned-for-life/
Go to the bottom of the article and over the comment section to continue with the article.The link to the full essay is small.

From your link:

During the past several decades, physics has uncovered basic features of the cosmos that seem, upon first glance, like lucky accidents. Theories now suggest that the most general structural elements of the universe — the stars and planets, and the galaxies that contain them — are the products of finely calibrated laws and conditions that seem too good to be true. What if our most fundamental questions, our late-at-night-wonderings about why we are here, have no more satisfying answer than an exasperated shrug and a meekly muttered ‘Things just seem to have turned out that way’?

That is not slamming fine tuning that is admitting it.

 

[[serious]]

I clicked on one of her links, and it was from 1976(?) and only the abstract was available, and from what I could tell, had nothing to do with fine tuning.

Worse than that, she admitted she hadn't read the paper after i found a link that included a section of the conclusion that explicitly refuted Once's argument. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-49#post-69733677