The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Interested readers can see that the above claim is a fabrication. The paper was in fact posted in a response to one of mine which had questions about probability estimates for how likely it was that the constants we see came about. See http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-38#post-69719387.

So now that we've established what actually happened, any chance you want to explain how the paper is in any way related to probability calculations for the odds of our universe being like it is? Or are you willing to admit it has nothing to do with this thread? Either is fine by me. But please, can you stick to what was actually posted in the thread?



Didn't explain anything at all? Bold claim. Just one question - have you actually read it yet?

Cherry picking my statements is dishonest.

 

[Veera Chase]

Cherry picking my statements is dishonest.

We all know who the dishonest one is don't we?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We all know who the dishonest one is don't we?

How have I been dishonest?

 

[Athée]

Hey Once,
I totally get why you feel the need to defend yourself on this thread, here was what we were talking about prior to the life as we know it objection in case you wanted to continue on
Once
1. You agree that fine tuning is a real phenomena.
Athée
With the caveat of the "life as we know it objection "

Once
2. You agree that chance is not a factor unless one adds the multiverse/mega verse.
Athée
Yes, or some yet to be considered hypothesis that similarly makes the probability likely.

Once
You agree that there is no known law of nature that explains the fine tuning phenomena.
Athée
Agreed

Once
You hold a default position

Athée
Agreed

 

[bhsmte]

Atheism explains absolutely nothing, atheism is about one issue and one issue only, it is a rejection of theistic claims that have not met their burden of proof.
You claim there is a God and I say I reject your claim, that is atheism, I reject your claims just as we both reject every other regions claims.
I am an atheist in respect to all religions while you are an atheist in respect to all religions except one.
My reason for rejecting your religion is exactly the same reason you give for rejecting all the other religions.
Now you know what an atheist is because you are one.

You are new, but this goes back a long way.

Some folks just can't get over the fact, the TOE does not mention a God had a hand in it. This usually comes from the theists who claim to understand science on one hand, but then misrepresent it on the other.

I put these folks, in the "closet fundie" group.

 

[bhsmte]

Interested readers can see that the above claim is a fabrication. The paper was in fact posted in a response to one of mine which had questions about probability estimates for how likely it was that the constants we see came about. See http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-38#post-69719387.

So now that we've established what actually happened, any chance you want to explain how the paper is in any way related to probability calculations for the odds of our universe being like it is? Or are you willing to admit it has nothing to do with this thread? Either is fine by me. But please, can you stick to what was actually posted in the thread?



Didn't explain anything at all? Bold claim. Just one question - have you actually read it yet?

Normal tactic.

 

[[serious]]

Cherry picking my statements is dishonest.

Cherry picking anyone's statements is dishonest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Cherry picking anyone's statements is dishonest.

I agree. The quotes I gave had the links to the original statements in what ever content they were taken.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are new, but this goes back a long way.

Some folks just can't get over the fact, the TOE does not mention a God had a hand in it. This usually comes from the theists who claim to understand science on one hand, but then misrepresent it on the other.

I put these folks, in the "closet fundie" group.

 

[Veera Chase]

I could say the same. You start with the assumption that there is no God and nothing will change your view.

I start with the assumption that there is no God because there is nothing in this world to suggest that there is a God.
I do not believe things just because they make me feel good, I may like things because they make me feel good and I eat things because they make me feel good but to believe something life changing it would need to be accompanied by an awful lot of evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point this was addressing (and if you can't keep track of your own arguments understand that I am posting to many people compared to you just commenting to me so if you are not sure please go and look to what I was commenting on)was about the possibilities of life/other universes.

The article doesn't talk about other universes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You should, if you wish to pretend to know more than the scientists that are making the claims.

I'm at a loss for words here.
The irony is so mega obvious, one has to wonder if you're doing it on purpose.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What quotes have I taken and made claims about myself that are not in keeping with the scientists that made them. Provide them.

You are adding claims about probabilities and are pretending that speculation is the same as actual theories.

How could that even be true when in fact, I've provided numerous quotes from scientists from all worldviews that claim the same thing? Think about that. Atheists, Deists, agnostics, Christians, and secular unbelievers.

You are adding stuff to those quotes which none of these people would agree with.

All claim the same thing and yet you think I am projecting. Time to look in the mirror perhaps? Those atheist scientists that agree with fine tuning are not hiding from the evidence.

For the bazillionth time, with "fine tuning", they do not mean what you think they mean..

They may be looking to explain it in natural terms but they aren't hiding from the truth of the actual phenomena like most are here. They are claiming the scientists that are Theists are making up things for their God, they have the same data. They know it is what it is and while they don't believe themselves that the apparent design is true design they acknowledge its there just the same.

But apparant design is not the same as actual design.

You are so oversimplifying the issue that it makes it nonsensical.

What is oversimplified about it?
Isn't this the foundation of your entire argument????
That physics in this universe works the way it does because the constants have the values that they have? And that different constants would result in different physics, which in turn would result in a different universe????

You are going to have to explain this one.

I, and others here, already did. Multiple times.

In order to be able to make supported claims about the probability of this universe existing in the way that it does, one has to first understand HOW universes form. One has to understand HOW the constants gain the value they have. One has to understand IF these constants can even BE something else then what they are.

In short: one has to have an accurate and detailed model on how universes come into existence.

We don't have such a model.

That is because you don't understand the concept.

What concept?
Perhaps you should try and explain it.

There were many predictions. That the universe had a beginning, if this had been taken as truth we would have known this much earlier than we did.[/quote]

And that goes for ANY creation story, both religious and non-religious.

Does it really need pointing out that predictions of a model must actually be an integral and somewhat exclusive part of the model, before it actually supports the model if the prediction turns out correct?

It was predicted that the universe would appear designed and it is.

I don't think the universe "appears designed".
You are welcome to explain how we can measure design to prove that it appears so.
Opinions of people are not evidence.

It was predicted that it was being spread out...expanding.

No, it wasn't. Only after scientists had shown that it was expanding, did religionists start "re-interpreting" those verses to mean that.

Most importantly, it taught us that we COULD understand the universe because it was made for us to comprehend it.

Then why don't we comprehend it?

WE couldn't test anything with out that.

Nonsense. We have our faculties and our reasoning abilities to test and investigate things - wheter your particular religion of choice is right or wrong.

Not only is the universe fine tuned but we set in the only location from which science can take place in the universe. Think about that one.

More obvious nonsense. Why wouldn't science be able to exist on other planets?
You're obviously desperate.

You're giving me more and more fuel to doubt your sincerity.
I stopped taking your seriously long ago, but now I even start to doubt if you actually believe the stuff you write here.

As a model it is absolutely necessary.

Again... models that are unfalsifiable are infinite in number and thus entirely useless.

ps: how can your model be falsified?

I know God must laugh at that.

You are welcom to try and show how my statement was false.

Well you win, I don't know what explanation you gave.

Or you don't want to know.
I explained it clearly. Multiple times.

You need an accurate and detailed model on how universes form and how values of constants are assigned during this process, and which also includes if multiple universe are possible and IF these values can actually be something other then what we see in this universe. You need such a model for the claims that you make.

But such a model does not exist. All you have is hypothetical speculation and religion.

Did I claim even once that there was data that any entity turned knobs? I don't think I have.

So, your argument of "fine tuning", doesn't include a "fine tuner"?

Yet, I've said that the evidence supports that conclusion.

Funny how you managed to contradict yourself in the very next sentence.
Again: no, the data does NOT support that in ANY way. See, this is one of those conclusions that YOU are adding to the quotes you keep spamming.

How is a conclusion supported? Can you explain?

By testable, verifiable and falsifiable predictions.

Obviously, and I don't either. I care about evidence and the evidence supports my conclusion.

Your conclusion requires a model that explains how universes form and what the true nature of the constants are, how they are assigned their values, what the possible ranges of these values are, what the probability is of which values, etc.... NONE of which is currently known.

The only think currently known at this time, is that the constants have a certain value. That's about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Replace "bible" by any other religious book and "god" by the deity of that religion, and the argument doesn't change. At all.



Having said that.... you are just asserting the causal link. You need to actually demonstrate it, instead.

You're missing a few steps.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fine tuning is the fine tuning and I am not interpreting it incorrectly. It is what it is. I believe theism explains that better than the atheistic naturalistic explanations.

Yes. Yes indeed. That is what you believe.

My point exactly.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Me: We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.

False. To get to probabilities of the universe / constants being the way they are, you need to know and understand:
- how universes come about
- how the constants get their values assigned
- what the possible range distribution is of potential values of the constants (which, for all we know, might be a distribution of ONE, meaning that the values can't be anything but what they actually are)
- how many trials there are (the amount of universes originating)
- ....

None of this is known. At all.

Tweaking values in a hypothetical model in a computer simulation tells us nothing at all, except what that would look like in that hypothetical world where we take the equation of this universe and feed other values into it.

Which, incidently, might not be sensical either. Who's to say that in other universes, the same equations apply?

See? This is what everybody here keeps telling you.

We have only this one universe that we know off. You need a *slightly* bigger sample, in order to be justified in making the claims that you do.

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh my.

Hey, if you're ok with what you've written I can't change your mind.

I've shown Luke Barnes and his calculations.

And what was his answer?

You can get Lee Smolin's book and his are in the back of the book.

I'm not excited to track down another reference you've never read, no matter how much faith you have that this will finally be the one which has the answer you hope it does.

But regardless, having so many necessary precise values seems to convince the scientists that this is highly unlikely to have happened by accident.

Is that what's actually in the papers they write or is it what you're sure must be in papers you've never read?

 

[KCfromNC]

Me: We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.

That's both false and totally unrelated to the contents of the paper you posted. Did you read it?

This might help:

http://planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013results/Planck_2013_results_16.pdf
This was showing how constants can be tweaked which is what needs to be known before getting to probability. Now we can see what I meant with the link.

The paper discusses empirical results measuring actual values of the CMB using a specific satellite, so no, I have no idea what you meant by the link. Go ahead and explain it to us.

 

[KCfromNC]

Cherry picking my statements is dishonest.

Do you have any examples of anyone doing that? And any chance you're going to get around to discussing the content of the posts rather than making random off topic statements?

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree. The quotes I gave had the links to the original statements in what ever content they were taken.

Yep, and they show that despite you claims to the contrary, the link was posted as a direct response to one of my posts questioning your misuse of probability.

Pretending I've done something wrong by pointing out mistakes in your posts is a peculiar tactic.