The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

A flawed argument is confirmation that God exists?

How do you know?

 

[KCfromNC]

This is so sad. There are plenty of atheistic scientists out there that are not afraid to acknowledge this argument, even Hitchens said it was a good argument but not you....no you KNOW better than everyone.

Nice attempt to jump from "some people think this" to "everyone but you thinks something". Or maybe I should just call it sad and add some frowny faces. That'll be sure to quiet the doubts.

Anyway, where do you get the idea that I'm afraid to address the argument from my multiple attempts at getting you to back up your claims related to it? Straw man much?

 

[AirPo]

How do you know?

If I knew I would not have used this punctuation mark -->?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are asserting that life could happen by chance, which couldn't happen if not for the precise values we are discussing.

Aaaaaand we're back to: "why is it so surprising to you that you live in a universe in which you can actually live?"

Again, it is if God wanted to have a choice of what to believe. If God put us on a planet without any other explanation it isn't a choice it is necessary to believe in Him.

That's nonsense.
Meet the flat earth society.

Which would be futile if not for the fine tuning concerning the life permitting values of the universe. Without the order and the chemistry being what it is there would not be life at all, and of course the majority of scientists don't believe it could have happened like this by chance.

And if there is no hole in the ground, it couldn't be filled with water.
Amazing isn't it? That you live in a universe in which you can actually exist.
So unexpected, ha?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who is "we" and what is it that they supposedly know? Are you going back to pretending you know that the particular set of constants we find are unlikely - right after admitting that even if they weren't you'd still believe it would point to your particular god(s)?

I didn't say that if they weren't I'd still believe they would point to God. That is ridiculous.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The majority of scientists are not as gullible as you are I guess. I've provided comments by the top scientists in the field that claim it is highly unlikely for the universe to be like this just by chance.

Top scientists, like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking?
Ow, oeps....

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't say that if they weren't I'd still believe they would point to God. That is ridiculous.

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.

You don't say?

 

[KCfromNC]

Top scientists, like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking?
Ow, oeps....

If you only count the scientists who agree with her, there's like nearly a 100% consensus that scientists agree with her. What are the odds?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This post has two common themes:
1. That we don't know why the fine tuning exists.
2. I am wrong to think God is behind it.

Allow me to rephrase those points....

1. constants have a certain value. It is unkown if these values can be anything else. Assuming they can (not that there is any reason to think they can), it is unknown how these values are determined during the creation of a universe. It's also unknown how the process of creating a universe works.

2. considering all the unknowns in point 1, the only valid answer to the question "why these values?" is we don't know. Any other answer, especially answers which assumes the existence of unproven and irrational entities, are rooted in ignorance.

If we don't know why the fine tuning exists and there is no natural reason that we know of why do discount God?

I didn't discounted anything.
A better question would be "why even propose a god in the first place".
I'm sure you heared the expression "that which is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence". It certainly applies here.

Nevertheless though, at least you are now acknowledging that it is an unknown. I guess that's a minor step forward. Now, for the next step, try to use that as a base to conclude "we don't know why" instead of "god dun it".

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I knew I would not have used this punctuation mark -->?

You are claiming it is flawed, how?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you only count the scientists who agree with her, there's like nearly a 100% consensus that scientists agree with her. What are the odds?

False.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Allow me to rephrase those points....

1. constants have a certain value. It is unkown if these values can be anything else. Assuming they can (not that there is any reason to think they can), it is unknown how these values are determined during the creation of a universe. It's also unknown how the process of creating a universe works.

2. considering all the unknowns in point 1, the only valid answer to the question "why these values?" is we don't know. Any other answer, especially answers which assumes the existence of unproven and irrational entities, are rooted in ignorance.



I didn't discounted anything.
A better question would be "why even propose a god in the first place".
I'm sure you heared the expression "that which is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence". It certainly applies here.

Nevertheless though, at least you are now acknowledging that it is an unknown. I guess that's a minor step forward. Now, for the next step, try to use that as a base to conclude "we don't know why" instead of "god dun it".

But fine tuning is evidence. So what you are saying is this: We don't know why the universe is fine tuned but I God is not it because there is no evidence. Yet, fine tuning is evidence that is reasonable and probable with the conclusion that there is a fine tuner. So it isn't asserted without evidence, there is evidence you just a priori dismiss it as such.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And they and you are wrong. It is from what we know.

Let's evaluate that claim....
- can values be different in "other" universes: unknown
- could they have been different in "this" universe: unknown
- assuming they could (which is unknown and thus unsupported), how are values determined: unknown
- considering the above, what is the probability of this universe being the way it is: unknown
- how did the universe originate: unknown

So what IS known?

The only thing known here... is what the values are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Aaaaaand we're back to: "why is it so surprising to you that you live in a universe in which you can actually live?"


That's nonsense.
Meet the flat earth society.




And if there is no hole in the ground, it couldn't be filled with water.
Amazing isn't it? That you live in a universe in which you can actually exist.
So unexpected, ha?

Scientists don't believe in a flat earth nor do Christians. And the majority of scientists in the field do find it surprising whether or not you do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Let's evaluate that claim....
- can values be different in "other" universes: unknown
- could they have been different in "this" universe: unknown
- assuming they could (which is unknown and thus unsupported), how are values determined: unknown
- considering the above, what is the probability of this universe being the way it is: unknown
- how did the universe originate: unknown

So what IS known?

The only thing known here... is what the values are.

What is know is how highly unlikely these came about by chance. We are determining which explanation best explains the evidence.

 

[AirPo]

You are claiming it is flawed, how?

By hitting the keys on my keyboard and clicking the post button.

Or did you mean like this post --> that you seemed to have missed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Top scientists, like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking?
Ow, oeps....

Stephen Hawking believes fine tuning is real. I am not sure of Krauss.

 

[AirPo]

But fine tuning is evidence. So what you are saying is this: We don't know why the universe is fine tuned but I God is not it because there is no evidence. Yet, fine tuning is evidence that is reasonable and probable with the conclusion that there is a fine tuner. So it isn't asserted without evidence, there is evidence you just a priori dismiss it as such.

As it's been pointed out already, fine tuning is not evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By hitting the keys on my keyboard and clicking the post button.

Or did you mean like this post --> that you seemed to have missed.

What?

 

[Oncedeceived]

As it's been pointed out already, fine tuning is not evidence.

Why not? That is what I am asking you.