A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Eudaimonist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Here is a debunking of your video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuEHe_BK-oI

If you wish to skip the intro, go to 5:25.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Damian79]

It seems to me that theists make these arguments only because of their a priori beliefs that the univere IS special. That the parameters ARE special. You never concluded this after objective and honest study. You just assume this due to your a priori faith-based beliefs.

This is not true. The cosmological constant that has been agreed upon by cosmologists is 10^122 that a universe can exist such as ours. We are either astronomically lucky or the universe was made.

[1105.3105] The Value of the Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant was first introduced by Einstein and has grown ever since. Hence why Einstein believed in a God but not a personal God because he has never seen God in action in his life, which is different from me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is not true. The cosmological constant that has been agreed upon by cosmologists is 10^122 that a universe can exist such as ours. We are either astronomically lucky or the universe was made.

Your conclusion does not follow.
Regardless of whatever number you post, your conclusion does not follow.

If this parameter has "10^122" chances of being this value, then the same goes for any other value.

You are again merely assuming that this value "special" and requires "special" explanation.

You would have a case if the probability of this universe existing as it exists, was exactly 0. If it were impossible for this universe to exist - yet it does. THEN you'ld be in your right to assume that there is something special going on without having evidence of that "special" ingredient. THEN you could assume that there is something more going.

But that's not the case.
Once more: it must have SOME VALUE. If you wish to add special meaning to this particular value, you're going to have to give an objective case for it.

I haven't seen such a case. Ever.


Furthermore, your choice of the word "lucky" exposes your reasoning error. It exposes that you have this idea that we humans are the point of the universe.

Is ice "lucky" to be in cold area's?
The ice might think so, but it is objectively the case?

Are polar bears "lucky" to be in cold area's?
Are fish "lucky" to live on a planet with lots of liquid water?

This is all hindsight teleological nonsense.

The cosmological constant was first introduced by Einstein and has grown ever since. Hence why Einstein believed in a God but not a personal God because he has never seen God in action in his life, which is different from me.

As far as I am aware, when Einstein used the word "god", he didn't use it to mean any kind of deity that actively engages in creating anything at all.

Not that it matters though. Just because Einstein believed X doesn't make it true.

Newton believed in Alchemy and spent more time on that then on the work that actually made him famous. Who cares who believes what...

 

[JimFit]

Here is a debunking of your video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuEHe_BK-oI

If you wish to skip the intro, go to 5:25.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Inspiring Philosophy have trashed his response here

https://inspiringphilosophy.wordpre...ill-debunks-materialism-refuting-thepolymath/

 

[JimFit]

JimFit, you didn't read my post with much attention, did you?

I'm not arguing for any particular thing (like the anthropic principle or whatever).

I'm arguing for we don't know.

If you didn't know you wouldn't assume a materialistic explanation.

Your very first statement made it clear that you didn't understand what I said (or simply ignored what I said):

I clearly stated that I don't even see a problem that requires solving.
As said, the parameters of the universe must have some value. The whole idea of calling this a "problem" assumes that the current values are somehow "special" and somehow require more explanation then a universe with different values. I don't see why that is the case.

Again if the Hubble Constant was different there would be no Universe AT ALL. The Constants have some values that couldn't be obtained by luck, take for example the Cosmological Constant, it works only in a part of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times, a Theist would say "Hey this was made! It couldn't be due to luck" an Atheist would say "It is due to luck,our existence has no purpose" The Fine Tuning is not a religious argument but a scientific one, as i pointed out atheists scientists accept it, it is irrelevant if they think that a physical cause will solve it.

Furthermore, to call this the "fine tuning problem", is to assume the answer before asking the question.

So these values doesn't need explanation right? Then why Susskind which fine tuning is in his field disagrees?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s

You could ask "why is the universe the way it is?". That's a sensible question.
To ask "why is the universe fine-tuned" is not a sensible question. That's a loaded question.

No its not because if we change the constants there would be no Universe at all!

This has nothing to do with materialism, necessity, anthropic principles, many universe interpretations,.... and everything with we don't know.

If you don't know you wouldn't imply materialism of the gaps.

Furthermore, I consistently see theists make the argument of "if you change this parameter here then that and that would be different". Well... obviously. If things would be different, then things would be different... Big whoop. What of it? How does that make the point that how things actually are is "special" and requires "special explanation"?

Here we are not talking about difference, here we are talking about existence. If the value of the Hubble Constant was different there would be no Universe at all!!!

It seems to me that theists make these arguments only because of their a priori beliefs that the univere IS special. That the parameters ARE special. You never concluded this after objective and honest study. You just assume this due to your a priori faith-based beliefs.

WRONG. The Universe is not special IT IS UNIQUE, to have something as special you must have something else to compare it.

I'll agree that the values require a special explanation once it is demonstrated that the values in fact are special. Not a second sooner.

Here it is, the paper that Victor Stenger failed to debunk

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.4647v1.pdf

 

[Eudaimonist]

Inspiring Philosophy have trashed his response here

https://inspiringphilosophy.wordpre...ill-debunks-materialism-refuting-thepolymath/

That's nice. It's still woo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[xTx]

Some of the evidence that supports my certainty that God produced and sustains the universe is that it is finely tuned all over to allow even the existence of atomic matter, let alone life and consciousness. If one of the fundamental constants (the weak atomic force for example) was off by a scale of a hair, molecular existence would not form at all.

Exactly my thoughts.

Why does water make noise when poured? Why is hot water hot to the touch?
Why do we have the ozone layer? Why the sun and the rain?

If not a fine tuned space ship called earth created and maintained by God - what else. That is not a question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If not a fine tuned space ship called earth created and maintained by God - what else. That is not a question.

A naturally existing space ship called Earth. There's your answer anyway.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Damian79]

Your conclusion does not follow.
Regardless of whatever number you post, your conclusion does not follow.

If this parameter has "10^122" chances of being this value, then the same goes for any other value.

You are again merely assuming that this value "special" and requires "special" explanation.

You would have a case if the probability of this universe existing as it exists, was exactly 0. If it were impossible for this universe to exist - yet it does. THEN you'ld be in your right to assume that there is something special going on without having evidence of that "special" ingredient. THEN you could assume that there is something more going.

But that's not the case.
Once more: it must have SOME VALUE. If you wish to add special meaning to this particular value, you're going to have to give an objective case for it.

I haven't seen such a case. Ever.

Yes but the chances of the universe existing like it is like a person winning 10 lottos straight. If that happened in reality everyone would assume he is cheating. Same applies to the universe.

Furthermore, your choice of the word "lucky" exposes your reasoning error. It exposes that you have this idea that we humans are the point of the universe.

And if we are? We know the earth is somewhere near the center of the universe.

Is ice "lucky" to be in cold area's?
The ice might think so, but it is objectively the case?

Are polar bears "lucky" to be in cold area's?
Are fish "lucky" to live on a planet with lots of liquid water?

This is all hindsight teleological nonsense.

This is pretty much special pleading and not related to the cosmological constant.

 

[JimFit]

That's nice. It's still woo.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Wow Ευδαιμονία thanks for opening my eyes! I mean calling woo something that you haven't studied must be strong argument that Inspiring Philosophy is wrong, by the way i don't agree totally with him and his wife.

I think when you are talking about woo you mean something from nothing? Randomness? Nothingness? Luck? P-zombie?

 

[Belk]

Wow Ευδαιμονία thanks for opening my eyes! I mean calling woo something that you haven't studied must be strong argument that Inspiring Philosophy is wrong, by the way i don't agree totally with him and his wife.

I think when you are talking about woo you mean something from nothing? Randomness? Nothingness? Luck? P-zombie?

Wow. Irony.

 

[durangodawood]

Why....Why....Why....Why....what else....

These questions belong to YOU.

The universe does not require these questions, let alone answers.

 

[xTx]

These questions belong to YOU.

The universe does not require these questions, let alone answers.

Exactly my thoughts.

Why does water make noise when poured? Why is hot water hot to the touch?
Why do we have the ozone layer? Why the sun and the rain?

If not a fine tuned space ship called earth created and maintained by God - what else. That is not a question.

Hey there - I was not asking questions nor asking for answers.

Looks like you did not get what I was saying. Not everybody gets it.

It's too deep for you?


The creator who fined tune the earth - sets it so that water when poured makes a noise. Ask the blind if it is helpful?

Why is water that is hot - hot to the touch - it is set so that we do not burn ourselves ...

The ozone layer protects us from the sun's harmful uv rays. Without it, life would not be as comfortable as it is.

Rain and sun? Without both - there is no life.

It is all just set right. An intelligent lifeform created all these on purpose. Well that is how I read the signs.

 

[xTx]

A naturally existing space ship called Earth. There's your answer anyway.


eudaimonia,

Mark

THink out of the box

 

[Eudaimonist]

THink out of the box

You first.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[xTx]

You first.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Earth is in space - it contains life support systems = space ship.

The camel is also called a ship - the ship of the desert.

I love Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and like minded readers/authors.

Christopher Moore is so funny.

 

[Non sequitur]

Wow. Can't believe this is still an argument.

Yes but the chances of the universe existing like it is like a person winning 10 lottos straight. If that happened in reality everyone would assume he is cheating. Same applies to the universe.

I see people still don't understand probability :/

Chances and probability require you to have other things to compare it to; it's a ratio. You can figure out the chance of a person winning a lottery, because we can compare that to people who play and don't win the lottery.

To assess the probability that the universe exists like it is, you would need to know the number of existing and viable universes... which is unknown. We cannot observe these universes, nor can we look for one that does not exist like this one does.

1:1 is the chance that the universe exists like it is.

 

[Smidlee]

1:1 is the chance that the universe exists like it is.

Duh, that because that looking in the past which doesn't work . Probability can only work just like science in the present.
For example: What is the probability of me being born on my birthday and my wife born on hers and have a child born on his birthday and we get married on on wedding day?
The answer is obvious since these are past events ; 1:1 like you said.

But when it comes to our universe past we used "the present as the key to the past." We used what we know to be true in the present ,, that everything has a causes and apply it to the universe , the universe has a cause.

 

[Non sequitur]

Duh, that because that looking in the past which doesn't work . Probability can only work just like science in the present.
For example: What is the probability of me being born on my birthday and my wife born on hers and have a child born on his birthday and we get married on on wedding day?
The answer is obvious since these are past events ; 1:1 like you said.

But when it comes to our universe past we used "the present as the key to the past." We used what we know to be true in the present ,, that everything has a causes and apply it to the universe , the universe has a cause.

Well now you run into a different problem.

One, you assert everything has a causes (sic). Saying everything you or I know of has a cause does not equate to everything that exists has a cause; you don't know that, I don't know that and neither of us can prove nor disprove "everything has a cause".

(Btw, radioactive decay might disagree with your causes statement.)

Two, if a god doesn't need a cause, neither does the universe; special pleading works for both, equally, btw.

 

[Smidlee]

Two, if a god doesn't need a cause, neither does the universe; special pleading works for both, equally, btw.

That would make the universe your god. Thus the universe is your creator.

radioactive decay is part of the universe , the nature laws.