Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I doubt that Collins thinks that.
But it's always nice to see how far oponents of somebody or something have to distord the actual thing they attack. It gives you a good idea about how absurd their position, because you usually only have to misrepresent an oposing position, if your own can't hold up on its own.
Hmm...
Are you going to be consistend with that? We can't observe it, therefore it's farytale?
Ok, good. Nice to see that you acknowledge the non-existence of any gods.
But of course, for that you needed to be internally consistend with your argument, which I don't expect you to be.
As I've explained: It's not as much a question if the multiverse actually exists or not, it's a question about if it works, if there are models that would make it concievable and if these models hold up.
You say that whenever the multiverse comes up, you don't have to consider it anymore, because it can't be demonstrated... and that seems to be your reason for actually making an additional step, to say that it actually doesn't exist.
And I'm glad that this also settles the entire debate about god and a fine-tuning, because I hate to break it to you, even if your assesment of the multiverse were absolutly correct, it would also apply to any fine-tuner or any fine-tuning of the universe...
Which closes this argument with you.
Thanks for playing
Uh...ok. Let's say this real slowly...
It is only fine tuned if it IS fine tuned and gauging that depends on how you formulate the calculation for how probably or otherwise it is. The method used that you brought up is shaky at best, and there are numerous other ways to think about the problem, wherein the fine tuning problem doesn't exist.
There are other ways of formulating the problem that lead to the order of magnitude being 52 times higher instead of 107 or 120, and still others that have no problem at all.
There are numerous ways around this particular issue, detailed best in
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0012253v1.pdf
You can't have the same argument about God...
...because God created the Universe, the Creation is proof of a Creator...[/quote]You can't have the same argument about God...
Some quantum physisists might want to have a word with you on that....because the Universe is [...] Deterministic...
Assertion without evidence....and Fine Tuned
Assertion without evidence....and that shows intention...
I never said it was based on chance, so now your just making up stuff you want your oponents to hold, instead of what they actually think....and not chance...
Sure... if you have a mind, a mind exists. Hey, I have a hand, therefore hands exist. Tautologies are not arguments.... and of course i have a Mind therefor i know from first place that a Mind exist...
...i know from first place what a Mind is to deny it, the different between my Mind and God's Mind is that God's Mind is omniscience and since Jesus said that i can reach perfection just like God it gives me the option to think like God.
The Multiverse is a fairy tale that doesn't even explain the Fine Tuning even if it existed
There is a paper from the astronomer Luke A. Barnes about the Fine tuning of the Cosmological Constant and the order of magnitute here
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf
This is something I don't get from someone like Francis Collins. In Language Of God he believed the fine-tuned universe as evidence of God yet believed our DNA was full of junk because of his faith in evolution. It's like the example atheist once gave it's like a water puddle thinking the pothole was made for it. Collins would used the fact the water puddle was a perfect fit for the hole was evidence of God while I would say the fact the water puddle was thinking would be the greater evidence.
It's not fine-tuned universe itself is the evidence of God but it's the thinking water puddles debating online about the fine-tuned universe is the evidence. Yet Collins thinks his thoughts are the results of an unknown blind unguided natural force acting on a stupid mythological ape-like creature.
Finely tuned for humans to live on less than 2% of the earth's surface.
Sounds legit.
And Stenger wrote a lengthy rebuttal, which Barnes didn't reply to (I believe).
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4359v1.pdf
Stenger's essential (correct) point - the universe is not anywhere near as fine-tuned as theists pretend - nowhere near - and Barnes fails to disprove that assertion. Alas, we won't have any more papers from Stenger as he passed away a month ago...a great shame
This is the ideal Universe for you.
Special pleeding.
"Let me set up this rules, that have to apply, until they become inconvenient for me. Then we can ignore them."
I really wish that I was surprised, but sadly, I had been more surprised, if this didn't show up eventually.
...because God created the Universe, the Creation is proof of a Creator...
Actually, no.
Reality is proof of a realter.
Word-games like that are fun, aren't they?
Unfortunatelly, it falls flat, because I can simply reject your assertion that it is "creation".
Some quantum physisists might want to have a word with you on that.
Assertion without evidence.
Assertion without evidence.
I never said it was based on chance, so now your just making up stuff you want your oponents to hold, instead of what they actually think.
Sure... if you have a mind, a mind exists. Hey, I have a hand, therefore hands exist. Tautologies are not arguments.
Aaaand we end with a huge number of unsuported claims that don't even fallow from anything you've said before.
This must be a new record or something.
It also doesn't explain dragons, unicorns and the great and powerfull Oz.
I'm not concerned that a model doesn't explain things that are just asserted without any evidence.
Unless you demonstrate that the universe is fine tuned, the multiverse doesn't need to explain it.
And again, you seemed to miss the point I've made when talking about the universe, but that's ok...
Given your rambeling here, I'm not even sure you've read anything anybody here has writen, or that you don't even care if any of your statements are even part of a coherent argument.
I guess that's it with that.
That would be a good example of a finely tuned universe if it was the whole universe.
eudaimonia,
Mark
God is the Mind that created the Universe, how does this apply to special pleading when humans are the images of God and they have minds that can understand the Universe? Your chance doesn't exist, get over it.
Assertion. Calling it "creation" already assums a creation. And unless you can, calling it "creation" is unjustified.That doesn't make sense, we are here, we all live in the same Universe. Why we are here? Because the Universe was created.
...was our creation random or deterministic? It was Deterministic and not random.
If something is Deterministic it proves a Creation,...
...if it didn't Atheists wouldn't propose a mindless Mother Universe that C R E A T E S Universes.
You can't have a Deterministic event from a Random Event.
Special pleading and ignorance about the quantum world, quantum physics ARE NOT RANDOM. Ask a physicist.
Where is your peer reviewed paper about chance?
Either we are here by chance or by intention...
... the Fine Tuning shows intention and not chance, you have no evidence about chance, i have evidence for intention.
If Minds DO exist how can God doesn't exist?
The difference you have with God is that He is Perfect, that doesn't mean that you can't be also perfect.
My argument isn't that hard, if our Minds reach perfection better how can you exclude a Mind that is already perfect?
God is the Mind that created the Universe, how does this apply to special pleading when humans are the images of God and they have minds that can understand the Universe? Your chance doesn't exist, get over it.
Now, all you have to do, is support that God is the mind that created the universe, that humans are indeed the image of this God.
If you have objective evidence that supports this directly, please share. By the way, I have no issue with your beliefs if you simply state; you believe it on faith.
That's clearly how I see him when he believe 98% of our DNA were junk. As of now he seem to have back off from the junk DNA idea.
Then how does Collins explain the fact that around 90% of our genome is collecting mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift?
You mean "the assumption" (The Neutral Evolution).
Those in favor of Neutral Evolution are oppose to those who think natural selection plays a major role in evolution.
Then you got someone like James Shapiro who think the mutations aren't random at all and he seems to have data to backup his view.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?