The fine tuning of the universe.

[HitchSlap]

The evidence is the fine tuning. That is confirmation of what I believe. See how that works.

Yes, we know how to recognize tautologies.

 

[Veera Chase]

You give nothing but ad hominem remarks, got anything else?

Nothing that would get through your defences.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, we know how to recognize tautologies.

Maybe you would like to show how it is tautology since you recognize it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nothing that would get through your defences.

Right. And of course you haven't tried due to that. Funny that it looks the same as not having anything to counter the argument.

 

[HitchSlap]

Maybe you would like to show how it is tautology since you recognize it.

You believe in god.
The universe is fine tuned.
Fine tuning needs a fine tuner.
My god fine tuned the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You believe in god.
The universe is fine tuned.
Fine tuning needs a fine tuner.
My god fine tuned the universe.

Biblical predictions claim the universe should be evidence of God.
The universe appears to be designed as evidenced by the fine tuning for intelligent life.
Design needs a designer.
The Bible claims God designed the universe.
God designed the universe as evidenced by the fine tuning of the universe.

 

[HitchSlap]

Biblical predictions claim the universe should be evidence of God.
The universe appears to be designed as evidenced by the fine tuning for intelligent life.
Design needs a designer.
The Bible claims God designed the universe.
God designed the universe as evidenced by the fine tuning of the universe.

Yep. Circular is circular.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. Circular is circular.

It isn't circular. The fine tuning is an observed phenomena that is actual and is evidence. There was no reason to believe that the universe need be fine tuned under naturalistic explanations.

 

[HitchSlap]

It isn't circular. The fine tuning is an observed phenomena that is actual and is evidence. There was no reason to believe that the universe need be fine tuned under naturalistic explanations.

The universe is as we find it. "Fine tuning" is what we call our perception of what we observe, and is "evidence" of nothing.

Your argument is circular, and no amount of special pleading will make it so.

 

[Veera Chase]

It isn't circular. The fine tuning is an observed phenomena that is actual and is evidence. There was no reason to believe that the universe need be fine tuned under naturalistic explanations.

Your blinkers will not allow you to see it in any way other than the way you want to see it.
You start with the assumption that there is a God and end by proving to yourself that there is a God,
it's like a lesson in 'How to fool yourself without even trying'.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, I've read enough from both authors to know what they would be saying in the article. They may not have fleshed out there views as fully since it was an earlier paper but the main focus would be the same.

If this is actually true, it makes me wonder why you didn't just post the better, more up to date work that you actually have read. If this is actually true.

 

[KCfromNC]

I also want to note that you are very good at making ad hominem remarks and accusations and completely empty in regard to backing up anything you assert in this thread.

Yawn. If you had anything of substance to answer with you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling. Or you'd at least be able to point out some of this rampant ad hominem you're imagining.

Speaking of empty assertions, though, have you had any luck finding a paper which shows how to calculate the probability distributions of universal constants when universes are formed? I could have sworn you were working on finding something, anything, to show that their current state is unlikely. You posted a few papers you no longer seem to want to discuss so I'm wondering if you've managed to find anything better.

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh the irony.

In what way?

Which I did because if not you wouldn't have known that I didn't.

Nah, not being able to answer simple questions about the contents of the papers you link to is also a pretty good clue.

A knowledgeable reader would

be far ahead of someone who admittedly is just guessing at the actual contents of the article.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is simply untrue.

If the origin of the inflaton field is unknown, how can one judge whether its form is somehow ‘unusual’ and ‘fine-tuned’ rather than ‘completely unsurprising’? As we have seen, the phenomena themselves do not wear such a designation on their sleeves. What is merely due to coincidence under one physical theory becomes the typical case under another and, where the physics itself is unclear, judgments about how ‘likely’ or ‘unlikely’ a phenomenon is become unclear as well. This problem gets even worse when you consider certain ‘constants of nature’.

Seems pretty clear to me that this is saying that guesses about the odds of our universe being as it is are simply that. But then again I've actually read the paper so what I do I know?

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess that slipped by somehow.

Kinda goes against the whole "I know enough about the authors to correctly guess the contents of everything they've every written" claim, huh?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I'm going to answer this from what I think would be a theistic evolutionist's POV, because I think they have a good answer for this.

The universe certainly could have been different ... but remember ... we are made in the image & likeness of God.

Who knows what we would look like if the universe was otherwise.

If there was no God there would be no universe.

 

[Picky Picky]

If there was no God there would be no universe.

Well, that seems to wrap it up. New thread, anyone?

 

[KCfromNC]

It isn't circular. The fine tuning is an observed phenomena that is actual and is evidence. There was no reason to believe that the universe need be fine tuned under naturalistic explanations.

There's no reason to be believe it needs to be fine tuned period. Nothing you've posted says that life must necessarily be an inevitable outcome. What's your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The universe is as we find it. "Fine tuning" is what we call our perception of what we observe, and is "evidence" of nothing.

Science would be no where if that is what everyone believed.

Your argument is circular, and no amount of special pleading will make it so.

You have a right to your opinion but that is all you have.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There's no reason to be believe it needs to be fine tuned period. Nothing you've posted says that life must necessarily be an inevitable outcome. What's your point?

Well, its probably true that a universe doesn't need to have life in it. Of course, in such a universe, nobody will notice that it exists. So among those who actually survey the universe they exist in, every one of them will find a universe that is compatible with life.

They call that the anthropic principle.