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 never claimed they did.
WE only HAVE EVIDENCE of ONE UNIVERSE. Until there is evidence that there are more then you have no argument against fine tuning. Even then you have to find an argument for why there is fine tuning in the multiverse that causes it to be present in ours.
The most commonly quoted number is of the order 10500. See M. Douglas, "The statistics of string / M theory vacua", JHEP 0305, 46 (2003). arXiv:hep-th/0303194; S. Ashok and M. Douglas, "Counting flux vacua", JHEP 0401, 060 (2004).
No, my claim is that the appearance of design supports the possibility of design.
See the "God's Trap which catches the Lies of Evolution" thread. No, I am not reading through that again.Sorry, I did no such thing.
Hilarious. That would be the same quotes you have been providing. You just interpret them with that infallible "worldview" of yours, where you cannot be wrong no matter what you read.Provide quotes from the physicists and astrophysicists that they claim it is their imagination and seeing bunnies in clouds when they discuss fine tuning of the universe.
<still nothing provided><looks for substantiation of that comment - as usual, sees none>
Have done so.
Allusions to how "lucky" we are, countered with this: "Ours isnt just a randomly hostile universe, it's an actively hostile universe."I read it. Explain why you feel this means that the universe is not fine tuned for life.
You do not know what "tuning" was done, or if "tuning" was possible, do you?Rather like having a such a strong desire to deny God one must deny scientific evidence for fine tuning.
Do you think that a computer's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that an automobile's appearance of design denotes a designer?
Do you think that space station's appearance of design denotes a designer?
If a person from another world found any of these without sign of life or of designers would they just believe it was an appearance rather than actual?
Regardless of what you feel the cause, the appearance of design always supports the possibility of actual design and denying it makes you seem a little irrational.
It is the actual evidence of such precise measurements and the consequences of those if changed leads to scientists claiming it appears designed. They see the signs that normally designed objects have in the universe.
This is showing your bias
How does the appearance of design support the possibility of no design?
if there was no appearance it would denote no design was apparent.
See the "God's Trap which catches the Lies of Evolution" thread. No, I am not reading through that again.
Hilarious. That would be the same quotes you have been providing. You just interpret them with that infallible "worldview" of yours, where you cannot be wrong no matter what you read.
Your position is two-fold: it is unfalsifiable, and you demand to be proven wrong. And the funny part is that you don't see what it wrong with that.
<still nothing provided>
Allusions to how "lucky" we are, countered with this: "Ours isnt just a randomly hostile universe, it's an actively hostile universe."
You do not know what "tuning" was done, or if "tuning" was possible, do you?
That the constants are constant is not in dispute.
I am glad that this dead horse is beyond feeling pain.
Ignoring the argument from authority... all you are saying here is "if things would be different, then things would be different".
Well.... big whoop.
Says the theist who's desperatly trying to inject his "designer god" into reality and science.
Cloud bunnies.
Really now? Are you absolutely sure about this?
Are you absolutely certain that people can't show you an example that contradicts this statement?
A picture of for example a landscape that you see as being a natural formation but which really was designed by a big artist for a few hundred thousand bucks?
Here we are at the core of your problem. You fall for appearances. You don't seem to recognise that we humans are a pattern seeking animal which is extremely prone to the well known "type 1 error": the false positive.
We see something, we assert a pattern and then assume we are correct about what the pattern is. While oftenly, there is no pattern at all and it's just us trying to make sense of a choatic world.
Scientists say that they know what the consequences would be if they were tuned differently and they do know that they could be different.
Scientists continue to look for explanations for the fine tuning problem and feel that it is a valid question in Science. You have the right to deny that if you wish.
'Moving the goalpost.
Now, you speak of the possibility.
Mere "possibilities" are infinite in number.
Here's a question for you:
How do you know the space station is design, but a snow flake isn't?
'
Science is all about possibilities. There is a hypothesis and the elements are then investigated to determine if it is possible and the data either confirms, supports or falsifies the hypothesis. Sometimes there is no way to determine for sure so the evidence either is supportive of the hypothesis or makes points against it.
No, what the scientists are saying is that things could have been different and we wouldn't be here to question anything.
Of course if you think that life existing is well...big whoop....I guess not being in existence has no value to you. I myself am glad I've been here.
No, I feel no desperation.
My claim is that the appearance of design is supportive to the possibility of design.
I clearly doubt that astrophysicists/physicists or cosmologists feel their conclusions are based on something as frivolous as being similar to cloud bunnies especially when they have repeatedly done tests to determine the values in regard to the existence of life here. But hey they aren't here right now to defend their claims so I guess it is a free for all.
Your determination of the fine tuning as being superficial is not valid according to the scientists that have researched it.
'
Science is all about possibilities
There is a hypothesis and the elements are then investigated to determine if it is possible and the data either confirms, supports or falsifies the hypothesis. Sometimes there is no way to determine for sure so the evidence either is supportive of the hypothesis or makes points against it.
This is such a bad argument. Sure there could be billions upon billions of universes both failed and successful but very rare would be the one like ours.
I am not making any assumptions, I am just presenting what physicists are claiming about our universe.
10 to the 500 power.
Twisting my claim is dishonest. Are you sure you want to go there again?
I gave you the link.
I gave you the link.
Projecting.
IF you have an issue with the fine tuning of the universe take it up with the physicists that investigated it.
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?