The fine tuning of the universe.

[Veera Chase]

Conclusions are based on what evidence we have. So you are saying explanations must have evidence: The fine tuning of the universe which has the appearance of design is the evidence and the best explanation for the appearance of design is actual design. See how that works. The conclusion is based on the evidence.

That as anyone will tell you is damaged thinking, they look like nice people so they are nice people, it looks safe to eat so it is safe to eat, that dog doesn't look like it will bite me so it won't bite me, that washing machine looks well made so it must be well made, as we all know too well looks can be deceiving.

 

[Veera Chase]

There conclusion that God doesn't exist is not based on evidence.

Then where would one go to find evidence that a God does exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am not sure what you mean by simply they are what they are. We know that atoms are what they are but we don't leave it at that. We know that black holes are what they are but we don't leave it at that. Why do you assume that there is no reason for them to be what they are?

The values being what they are, tell you nothing about why they are what they are, and if they even could be any different.

That's the whole point. You keep claiming the opposite.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't understand what you mean by they are what they are? Trees are what they are, plants are what they are and on and on.

The difference is that we actually have the tools required to investigate where trees and plants come from. With the constants, we do not. At least not at this point.

To say they are what they are to me connotes no reason for them.

How do you propose to find out what that reason is?
What studies would need to be done?
How could the hypothesis resulting from such a study be falsified or tested?

See?

You can't just go ahead and make assertions about "tuners", without doing that work.

The values being what they are, is not evidence for any particular reason of the values being what they are. They are merely observations.
Pieces of data. I can observe an apple to be green, but that fact alone will not tell me WHY it is green, nore would it tell me if an apple could actually be any other color but green.

To find out if it can have different colors, I'ld have to have a much bigger sample besides just the one apple.
To find why the apple is green, I'ld have to know the process that produces apples, where apples come from.
If I find out that apples can have a different color, and would want to know what the probability is of an apple ending up green or one of those other colors, I'ld again have to understand the process of how apples originate and where and how during that process the color is obtained / assigned / decided / determined.


But if I have only the ONE green apple and have NO IDEA where the apple came from or how apples originate, or if there even IS more then one apple, then I can't answer any of these questions.



We have access to just this one universe. We do not know how it originated. We do not know if there are other universes. We do not know if the laws and constants of universes can be any different.

So ANY claim concerning any of this, will by definition be rooted in ignorance, unfounded assumption and baseless speculation.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, you asked me for MY work. That was in response to that.

To be more accurate, I asked for any evidence at all that you weren't just making stuff up. So far, all I've gotten in return is attempts at diversion like your post here.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't understand what you mean by they are what they are? Trees are what they are, plants are what they are and on and on.

Yes, excatly.

You are begging the question.

Pointing out you've been unable to substantiate your claims isn't begging the question.

To say they are what they are to me connotes no reason for them.

I have no idea why you'd think that.

 

[KCfromNC]

I gave you Penrose remember.

And what was his number for the probability that our universes' constants are what they are? Oh, that's right, he didn't give one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think the universe looks designed for us but that wasn't my point. The point was that the only kind of universe that could create life by chance just happens to be the kind of universe we observe.

How does the universe create life by chance? Please provide the evidence that shows this is the kind of universe that creates life by chance.

God didn't have to make it that way. You think it is a proof of his power that shows he made it but I see it as rather second rate. If God wanted to show that he made it a single planet that allows life in a brand new universe that would look like design.

IF the universe didn't looked designed this conversation would not be happening. In fact, if the universe didn't look designed the label of fine tuning would not have been chosen for the phenomena. Scientists would not have to ponder why the universe appears designed. So to claim the universe doesn't appear designed is based not on the actual way the universe appears but denying that it appears that way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, excatly.



Pointing out you've been unable to substantiate your claims isn't begging the question.



I have no idea why you'd think that.

What haven't I been able to substantiate?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And what was his number for the probability that our universes' constants are what they are? Oh, that's right, he didn't give one.

He gave the probability of one. Did you not understand that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then where would one go to find evidence that a God does exist?

An honest appraisal of one who has no evidence for God would be that they have no evidence for God. They do not make claims that He does not exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The values being what they are, tell you nothing about why they are what they are, and if they even could be any different.

That's the whole point. You keep claiming the opposite.

The fact is that there is no reason why they could not be different. I don't say that the physicists say that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To be more accurate, I asked for any evidence at all that you weren't just making stuff up. So far, all I've gotten in return is attempts at diversion like your post here.

No this was a response to you asking for MY WORK.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The difference is that we actually have the tools required to investigate where trees and plants come from. With the constants, we do not. At least not at this point.

We don't know where gravity comes from either but we understand the results of it and use it for all matter of science.

How do you propose to find out what that reason is?
What studies would need to be done?
How could the hypothesis resulting from such a study be falsified or tested?

See?

You can't just go ahead and make assertions about "tuners", without doing that work.

Why not? Scientists are making assertions about other universes as explanation. Why is it you don't have a problem with that?

The values being what they are, is not evidence for any particular reason of the values being what they are. They are merely observations.
Pieces of data. I can observe an apple to be green, but that fact alone will not tell me WHY it is green, nore would it tell me if an apple could actually be any other color but green.

To find out if it can have different colors, I'ld have to have a much bigger sample besides just the one apple.
To find why the apple is green, I'ld have to know the process that produces apples, where apples come from.
If I find out that apples can have a different color, and would want to know what the probability is of an apple ending up green or one of those other colors, I'ld again have to understand the process of how apples originate and where and how during that process the color is obtained / assigned / decided / determined.

If you only find green apples and you've looked all over the planet do you claim that there are purple apples that might be on another planet? Does that even make sense?

But if I have only the ONE green apple and have NO IDEA where the apple came from or how apples originate, or if there even IS more then one apple, then I can't answer any of these questions.



We have access to just this one universe. We do not know how it originated. We do not know if there are other universes. We do not know if the laws and constants of universes can be any different.

So ANY claim concerning any of this, will by definition be rooted in ignorance, unfounded assumption and baseless speculation.

If we are in one universe and that is all we have for certain then we don't assert others just to make sense of this one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fact is that there is no reason why they could not be different. I don't say that the physicists say that.

And neither is there any reason to think they could. The point exactly.

It is unknown.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We don't know where gravity comes from either but we understand the results of it and use it for all matter of science.

I don't see how that is relevant to what I said. We aren't discussing "effects". We are talking about origins and why things turned out the way they are.

Indeed, we don't know that about gravity either. What's your point?

Why not?

.... I just told you in the quote you are replying to ....

Scientists are making assertions about other universes as explanation. Why is it you don't have a problem with that?

Because they aren't making any assertions about other universes. They are, instead, speculating / hypothesising and exploring such ideas and looking for ways to test it. Which is entirely different.

If you only find green apples and you've looked all over the planet do you claim that there are purple apples that might be on another planet? Does that even make sense?

No, that indeed makes no sense. Yet, that is exactly what you are doing.
You only have this one universe and you don't know if there are other universe or if this universe could have been any different. You don't know if the constants could have been any different. You have no examples of other universes with other values. You have no data whatsoever to support the notion that the values could be any different.

Just like in my analogy of knowing about a single green apple, we wouldn't know if an apple could be purple.

Funny how you managed to defeat your very own argument by responding to my analogy.

If we are in one universe and that is all we have for certain then we don't assert others just to make sense of this one.

Exactly. And in the exact same reasoning, we don't just assert that the values could have been different, or that the values are improbable, or that undetectable entities exist that turned knobs to make the values what they are.

Yes. Yes, indeed.

Is it sinking in, now?

I'll put money on "no". I predict you'll ignore everything you yourself just said and resort to your tired old refuted statements again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We can recognize human design, for the most part.
It's not clear to me we would also recognize alien design.

But here's the thing... if we recognize design, we would simply call it designed and not an appearance of design.

And we recognize design primarily by signs of manufacturing.
We need quite some knowledge about the natural world to be able to do that as well.
Some things are obvious, others are not and some things are simply unrecognisable as being designed.

The universe bares no signs of manufacturing. At all.
And, to repeat myself, "appearance" is by definition a subjective opinion.
What may appear as X to you, doesn't necessarily appear as X to me.

It does show signs of design, that is why the term fine tuning was chosen for the label of the phenomena. It appears that the 30 parameters that must be precisely what they are were set to be that way. The fact that it is recognized as if someone or something tuned them in the way they needed to be to create a universe and intelligent life within it.

What aspects would that be?

See above.

I'm not making any assertions. I'm responding to YOUR assertion.

No, you are responding with your own. You have no evidence that prohibits a fine tuner.

What claim??
You claimed that "scientists consider it a valid argument".
I responded with the fact that it's quite easy to find scientists that don't.

I retract that. I didn't mean to say that all scientist think it is a valid argument. I should have said some scientists.

I'm pointing out, once more, how cherry picking you are when it comes to your fallacious arguments of authority.

You praise all scientists you think agree with your view, while ignoring all those who clearly don't.

I have provided two arguments using scientist's arguments. The first is for the fine tuning of the universe. The consensus is that fine tuning is real. I argued with quotes from Einstein to counter your remark that he was an atheist. So what exactly have I cherry picked other than what I just retracted.

You said: "you claimed that they did have evidence that would show God didn't do it."
In the above quote, I'm not making such a claim at all.

It seems you think that a person can only become an atheist if, and only if, they have evidence that excludes a god from creating the universe. This is beyond ridiculous.

It seems I caught you red-handed strawmanning me.

You haven't clarified what you meant yet.

Except that we do. If you wish to claim that it was pre-planned, we do. If you wish to claim that the values could have been different, we do. If you wish to make ANY CLAIM whatsoever about how the values are assigned/obtained, you do.



Just like there is no reason to believe that they could.
That's kind of the thing with the unknown.... it isn't known.

If the values couldn't have been different that makes the design even more convincing. If the universe could not have been different it would be even more fine tuned.

It's not valid. Values being what they are could have all kinds of reasons:
- an infinite amount of universes with different values, it's inevitable that one like ours exists
- an infinite amount of universes, all with the same values, because they might not be able to have any other value

So? What if there were infinite mounts of universe with the same or different values? How would that eliminate the fine tuning?

- just this universe with the values it has, because they might not be able to be any different
- just this universe with the values it has by pure coincidence: they might be able to have different values, so the universe would end up having SOME configuartion, and this particular configuration is just as likely as any other configuration
- just this universe with the values it has by pure probability: they might be able to have different values, but with these values being some kind of "hot spot", so the universe would end up having SOME configuartion, and this particular configuration is actually more likely then other configurations.

1. Makes it more fine tuned.
2. No scientist believes the parameters happened by sheer coincidence.
3. There is no reason why this configuration is more likely then others we don't have others to show that.
- .......

There's an inumerable amount of possible explanation. And the values being what they are don't point to any specific one.

You are just going on and on about a tuner, only because your a priori religious beliefs. Your religion requires you to believe in a tuner. It's not because of supposed "evidence". It's because of religious dogma.


As for me, I leave all options open and am happy saying "I don't know" while experts in the field are trying to find out.

First of all, I have said very little about a fine tuner so claiming I've gone on and on is a straw man. Secondly, my "religion" doesn't require anything but to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. One and only requirement. Lastly, it is because of evidence that is the whole point and the fact that you deny any evidence supporting a fine tuner out right shows your anti-religious dogma very clearly.

That's just not true, because your "design" argument requires assumptions that aren't justified or supported.

Even right out the gates, the obvious big assumption is the existence of an unsupported entity you like to call "god".

Occam's razor.

Right, one explanation...one God vs. infinite universes. I think the one God fits best with Occam's razor.

The explanation with the least unfounded assumptions is the most likely one.

Consider this...
I leave my house and the tv is intact.
I come back home a couple hours later and the tv is smashed to pieces.
Which is most likely:
- some human entered my house and smashed my tv
or
- an extra-dimensional alien appeared in my living room and smashed my tv.

Both are, strictly speaking, "possible".
Which is most likely? And why?

I would agree that it is most likely a human did it, it may have been a cat or a dog if one is in the house. But that is a reasonable assumption.

If you went to the beach and found pebbles in small piles spelling out "peace on earth" would you think that they just happened there by chance or would you assume some intelligent being spelled it out?

It's not about "liking" it or not. It's about unfounded assumption upon unfounded assumption resulting in an extremely poor and fallacious argument.

Also, the projection in that quote is kind of hilarious...

How is it a fallacious argument? What do you think makes it so?

You keep saying this.....
Hawking, for one, disagrees.
So does Krauss.

But I'm sure they are just "rebels against god" who "just want to sin", so that's the reason why they reject your god-argument, I bet.

Why do you feel they are free from bias when they have made it very clear they are atheists? Do you believe that they would not want to have science eliminate God from being an option?

ow my........

genuine scientific hypothesis vs faith based god-arguments....

But the hypothesis is what is attempting to "explain it away".... my, my.

I've heard scientists admit it.

And I'm saying you're wrong and have explained why it's wrong on countless occasions.

No, you haven't explained why I'm wrong. You have asserted I'm wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And neither is there any reason to think they could. The point exactly.

It is unknown.

Tell me what it would mean if they couldn't be different. Tell me what it would mean if they could.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see how that is relevant to what I said. We aren't discussing "effects". We are talking about origins and why things turned out the way they are.

Indeed, we don't know that about gravity either. What's your point?

We don't need to know the origin to understand what gravity does and what would happen if it wasn't what it is.

.... I just told you in the quote you are replying to ....

I'll have to look.

Because they aren't making any assertions about other universes. They are, instead, speculating / hypothesising and exploring such ideas and looking for ways to test it. Which is entirely different.

Oh, of course....they are just speculating not asserting. How is this entirely different?

No, that indeed makes no sense. Yet, that is exactly what you are doing.
You only have this one universe and you don't know if there are other universe or if this universe could have been any different. You don't know if the constants could have been any different. You have no examples of other universes with other values. You have no data whatsoever to support the notion that the values could be any different.

Just like in my analogy of knowing about a single green apple, we wouldn't know if an apple could be purple.

Funny how you managed to defeat your very own argument by responding to my analogy.

How many times in a scientific study do we bring in the possibility of unknowns as stopping our conclusions? If we had stopped our conclusions about our universe we would know nothing. We can not know if there are other universes. So how are other universes any better in explanation than God? Also, how do other universes eliminate fine tuning?

Exactly. And in the exact same reasoning, we don't just assert that the values could have been different, or that the values are improbable, or that undetectable entities exist that turned knobs to make the values what they are.

But scientists have shown the values are improbable. There are books written about how improbable scientist find the universe having the values we have.

Yes. Yes, indeed.

Is it sinking in, now?

I'll put money on "no". I predict you'll ignore everything you yourself just said and resort to your tired old refuted statements again.

If this issue was refuted, then present it.

 

[Veera Chase]

An honest appraisal of one who has no evidence for God would be that they have no evidence for God. They do not make claims that He does not exist.

Having appraised the evidence I am right to say that there is no evidence that Gods exist, I'm glad we cleared that up.

I'm done because this is nothing but an exercise in futility, it's like arguing with someone who swears they are Napoleon.