Fine tuning, a new approach

[joshua 1 9]

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I figured you would get lost when we started to talk about the rubber meeting the road and getting things to work in the real world and not the pretend world that so many people like to live in. God represents the real world. Atheism represents a pretend world that does not exist.

 

[bhsmte]

I figured you would get lost when we started to talk about the rubber meeting the road and getting things to work in the real world and not the pretend world that so many people like to live in. God represents the real world. Atheism represents a pretend world that does not exist.

Uh huh.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's pathetic that you would believe such nonsense as 'fine tuning' because it's an obvious creationist con.
Why don't you just believe your Bible and leave others to believe what they want to believe? what difference does it make to you what others believe? if everyone believed as you do would it make it anymore true or less true than it is now? no.

Fine tuning is a discovery by scientists that shows that the universe has the precise values in the fundamental constants that allow the universe to exist and for intelligent life as we know it to exist in it. This is not nonsense and is a very real phenomena that scientists the world over are trying to explain. The fact that you are unaware of the scientists that are in the midst of trying to explain it shows that you are not equipped with the information to make a determination about it.

If then you are not talking about the fine tuning of the universe but my claim that theism better explains the fine tuning, then perhaps that too comes down to a lack of information that you are not privy to.

 

[JaneC]

Fine tuning is a discovery by scientists that shows that the universe has the precise values in the fundamental constants that allow the universe to exist and for intelligent life as we know it to exist in it.

All you need do now then is to show some evidence for the existence of this intelligent life.

This is not nonsense and is a very real phenomena that scientists the world over are trying to explain.

And just how do you think they are going to do that when the supernatural is a figment of mans imagination?

The fact that you are unaware of the scientists that are in the midst of trying to explain it shows that you are not equipped with the information to make a determination about it.

My beliefs along with your beliefs mean nothing as to whether it's all true or not, unless the scientists or whoever would like it all to be true can come up with some evidence it's all just pie in the sky.

If then you are not talking about the fine tuning of the universe but my claim that theism better explains the fine tuning,

Theism explains nothing.

then perhaps that too comes down to a lack of information that you are not privy to.

I'm not privy to anything you are not privy to.

 

[joshua 1 9]

All you need do now then is to show some evidence

The evidence is when the rubber meets the road. What can you accomplish in the real world.

 

[JaneC]

The evidence is when the rubber meets the road. What can you accomplish in the real world.

Admittedly not as much as you can in your imaginary world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All you need do now then is to show some evidence for the existence of this intelligent life.

Look in a mirror. There is the evidence.

And just how do you think they are going to do that when the supernatural is a figment of mans imagination?

Provide evidence that the supernatural is a figment of man's imagination.

My beliefs along with your beliefs mean nothing as to whether it's all true or not, unless the scientists or whoever would like it all to be true can come up with some evidence it's all just pie in the sky.Theism explains nothing.I'm not privy to anything you are not privy to.

Fine tuning has evidence that is the point. I disagree, I think theism explains why there is something rather than nothing, I think it explains why there is intelligent life, I think it explains why there are laws that govern the universe. You are not privy to the supernatural, millions of others are.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Admittedly not as much as you can in your imaginary world.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

"Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient 'coincidences' and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if 'a super- intellect has monkeyed with physics'" (Paul Davies)

Paul Davies is more open minded than some, but he is no theist, let alone a creationist.

Paul Davies is something of a Theist/Deist. Although he doesn't attend a church as such, he reads the Bible in his spare time and delves into religious philosophy. He has argued in some forums for a God & Free Will and a number of other religion based interests.... so, yeah, he is religious. http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/j8.html

 

[46AND2]

I think the point is that God is able to do what He says He will do. According to Moses: "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" "For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth."

I think you either missed, or are evading the point. I'm guessing the latter.

 

[46AND2]

Why then does Krauss write a book about nothing being something. Because most physicists do believe that the singularity whatever it is came out of nothing.

No they don't.

 

[JaneC]

Look in a mirror. There is the evidence.

I should have known better, I am the fool not you.

 

[lesliedellow]

Paul Davies is something of a Theist/Deist. Although he doesn't attend a church as such, he reads the Bible in his spare time and delves into religious philosophy. He has argued in some forums for a God & Free Will and a number of other religion based interests.... so, yeah, he is religious. http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/j8.html

From your link:
"Well, I think I can only tell you what my concept of God is. I don't especially want to comment on other people's interpretation. Let me just say that, coming back to the Templeton prize, it's not tied to any particular religion. Some of the people who have collected the prize in the past have been ministers of religion, but some of them have no religion. I myself would not say that I have a religion. I don't belong to any religious organization. I don't go to church. I read the Bible occasionally for literary enjoyment. I'm fascinated by its history, but I'm not religious in any conventional sense."

Being able to talk about religion, without sounding like a five year old, does not a theist make. More recently:

"The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better."

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

From your link:
"Well, I think I can only tell you what my concept of God is. I don't especially want to comment on other people's interpretation. Let me just say that, coming back to the Templeton prize, it's not tied to any particular religion. Some of the people who have collected the prize in the past have been ministers of religion, but some of them have no religion. I myself would not say that I have a religion. I don't belong to any religious organization. I don't go to church. I read the Bible occasionally for literary enjoyment. I'm fascinated by its history, but I'm not religious in any conventional sense."

Being able to talk about religion, without sounding like a five year old, does not a theist make. More recently:

"The root cause of all the difficulty can be traced to the fact that both religion and science appeal to some agency outside the universe to explain its lawlike order. Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better."

I did read that. Having said that though, the position on a multiverse isn't just a butt covering guess, there's been underpinning to this idea in String Theory/M Theory. For some reason, Paul Davies is still on the outer in the field of Cosmology when he talks about a "Fine Tuner" of sorts, deist or theist, in lieu of the many other hypothesis put forward well before this one of his.

 

[lesliedellow]

I did read that. Having said that though, the position on a multiverse isn't just a butt covering guess, there's been underpinning to this idea in String Theory/M Theory. For some reason, Paul Davies is still on the outer in the field of Cosmology when he talks about a "Fine Tuner" of sorts, deist or theist, in lieu of the many other hypothesis put forward well before this one of his.

I somehow doubt if Paul Davies needs any lectures about M theory from you. String theorists have no evidence for a multiverse. What they have got is an embarrassment of riches, in the form of 10^500 possible M theories, and no way of deciding which (if any) of those theories is applicable to this universe. So they have just decided, with absolutely no supporting evidence, that there must be one actual universe corresponding to each of those possible universes.

Paul Davies talks about God in a hypothetical sense.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I somehow doubt if Paul Davies needs any lectures about M theory from you.

Agreed! Not me that's lambasting him for his ideas though.

String theorists have no evidence for a multiverse. What they have got is an embarrassment of riches, in the form of 10^500 possible M theories, and no way of deciding which (if any) of those theories is applicable to this universe. So they have just decided, with absolutely no supporting evidence, that there must be one actual universe corresponding to each of those possible universes.

Paul Davies talks about God in a hypothetical sense.

Most of those in the scientific community that are working in this field tend towards a multiverse (admittedly among many other hypothesese). There's still no way to test any hypothesis for the starting conditions of this Universe, but M-theory predicts multiple (I think, depending on the applied model, either around 11 or up to 500) dimensions, which when considered, led to the plausibility of a multiverse. Again, this is simply the best guess given the currently unprovable hypothesis in hand. Sentient beings just don't need to be considered in these models. Paul Davies is still an outlier in this field.

 

[lesliedellow]

Agreed! Not me that's lambasting him for his ideas though.

Most of those in the scientific community that are working in this field tend towards a multiverse (admittedly among many other hypothesese). There's still no way to test any hypothesis for the starting conditions of this Universe, but M-theory predicts multiple (I think, depending on the applied model, either around 11 or up to 500) dimensions, which when considered, led to the plausibility of a multiverse. Again, this is simply the best guess given the currently unprovable hypothesis in hand. Sentient beings just don't need to be considered in these models. Paul Davies is still an outlier in this field.

M Theory doesn't predict 11 dimensions. They have to keep adding extra dimensions to make it work. As with everything else to do with string theory, there is zero empirical evidence for those extra dimensions.

 

[[serious]]

How does that relate?

It demonstrated that the values and formulas can remain unchanged regardless of the existence of the things they describe. We know pi to trillions of decimal places. No circle that perfect has ever existed.

 

[[serious]]

It was fine tuned for the universe to exist and for life in it.

And God was fine tuned to desire the universe to exist as it is with this for of life in it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No they don't.

Ok. What scientists don't?