The fine tuning of the universe.

[DogmaHunter]

Seriously? If they couldn't be different they would still be fine tuned.

Make up your mind.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Because a force like gravity exists, a creator for the universe is not necessary"
~Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

No, now see you are going to the conclusion rather than the evidence. Stephen Hawking does believe the fine tuning is real and is not just the way things are as you seem to think.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Make up your mind.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You are very confused and I don't know how to point it out to you.

 

[bhsmte]

Looks like scramble mode today.

 

[KCfromNC]

even Hitchens said it was a good argument

He also said it didn't prove design or a designer. You agree with him, or is this another case of people you cite as experts disagreeing with you?

https://thetruthwillmakeyoumad.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/151/ :

The fine-tuning, that one degree, well, one degree, one hair different of nothing—that even though it doesn’t prove design, doesn’t prove a Designer, [the fine-tuning] could have all happened without [God]

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wasn't asking what you believe, I was asking for you to support your claim with actual evidence. For some reason you seem very hesitant to just tell us how unlikely you know our particular universe is.

The evidence for the unlikeliness is the fine tuning for crying out loud. That is the support, that is the background for my claim! I can't believe this. I really can't.

You've already responded to me saying this whole mess is an argument from ignorance. Not sure what would lead you to feel that I think I (or anyone else) have answers here.

No one believes that it is an argument from ignorance but the few atheists on this board.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think others who actually read what is out there from experts in the field understand how unlikely. If you want to claim it isn't unlikely that is your opinion.

How do you calculate the probability of X being the way it is, if X is the only example you have and when it is unknown how X comes about?

 

[Oncedeceived]

He also said it didn't prove design or a designer. You agree with him, or is this another case of people you cite as experts disagreeing with you?

https://thetruthwillmakeyoumad.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/151/ :

i know he doesn't believe it proves a designer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He does believe what scientists say about the improbablity and unlikelihood of the universe coming about by chance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Because a force like gravity exists, a creator for the universe is not necessary"
~Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

Yep. That is what he thought but of course he didn't have evidence to show that gravity could exist when space, energy, matter and time didn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you calculate the probability of X being the way it is, if X is the only example you have and when it is unknown how X comes about?

Because there are like over 30 parameters that make it that way which is highly improbable to come from chance.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you believe only poorly educated people are the only ones that think the fine tuning argument for God is a good one?

Please try reading attentively.

I said that only very poorly educated people will be convinced by intellectually dishonest arguments which are based on the abuse of potentially loaded language.

Like when Ben Stein states that Dawkins believes in a designer because he talks about the "design of the human body", or that because evolutionary biologists talk about the "design of a body", it must follow that a designer designed it.

Someone with a certain level of education would understand that when Dawkins uses the word "design" in that context, he doesn't mean or imply what people like Ben Stein claim he means...

The same goes for when a physicists talks about a "fine tuned" universe, when speaking only about the measured values of the fundamental constants.

 

[KCfromNC]

The evidence for the unlikeliness is the fine tuning for crying out loud.

Again, you're [not] answering a question I didn't ask. To repeat myself yet again, I'm just asking you to tell us exactly how unlikely our universe's set of constant is and what peer-reviewed publication that number came from.

No one believes that it is an argument from ignorance but the few atheists on this board.

That's patently false :

http://new.exchristian.net/2013/07/addressing-and-refuting-cosmological.html

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, now see you are going to the conclusion rather than the evidence. Stephen Hawking does believe the fine tuning is real and is not just the way things are as you seem to think.

In the sense that the workings of the universe are dependent on the values of the constants. Not in the loaded sense that a tuner was required, which is what you are adding to it in an intellectually dishonest way. As I have told you 20 pages ago.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are very confused and I don't know how to point it out to you.

Maybe you are the cause of the confusion with your self-contradictory claims. Every considered that?

 

[KCfromNC]

i know he doesn't believe it proves a designer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Looks like another case where we're supposed to believe this guy is an expert only in areas where he agrees with you.

He does believe what scientists say about the improbablity and unlikelihood of the universe coming about by chance.

Citation needed. Heck, I 'd be curious to find any scientists who are sure whatever was going on before the universe existed was totally random to begin with. I thought the discussion was between processes science can investigate and magic beings do whatever they were doing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because there are like over 30 parameters that make it that way which is highly improbable to come from chance.

There are similarly many parameters in play when you flip a coin. Doesn't make heads or tails an unlikely outcome.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because there are like over 30 parameters that make it that way which is highly improbable to come from chance.

I didn't ask you a "why" question. So any answer that starts with "because" is not an answer to the question I asked.

I'll repeat:

How do you calculate the probability of X being the way it is, if X is the only example you have and when it is unknown how X comes about?


Please share the method by which this is done.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the sense that the workings of the universe are dependent on the values of the constants. Not in the loaded sense that a tuner was required, which is what you are adding to it in an intellectually dishonest way. As I have told you 20 pages ago.

How is it an intellectually dishonest way?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't ask you a "why" question. So any answer that starts with "because" is not an answer to the question I asked.

I'll repeat:

How do you calculate the probability of X being the way it is, if X is the only example you have and when it is unknown how X comes about?


Please share the method by which this is done.

Look at the links I've supplied.

 

[KCfromNC]

Look at the links I've supplied.

Why?