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.
Coincidence? How many universes were compared in order to make that determination? We only have one, remember?
Have you not covered all of this in the last six years, Once?
Show how Barnes determined that our universe had to be fine-tuned to support life.
Are you making these comments consciously or subconsciously?
Coincidence? How many universes were compared in order to make that determination? We only have one, remember?
Have you not covered all of this in the last six years, Once?
I did. It was not provided. It never is.
This is just showing the lack of understanding of what fine tuning observation is about.
Yes it was...here it is again for your convenience. [1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
My point was that superficial appearances can be decieving. Is the image a duck? A rabbit? Both? Neither? You'd never be sure with just a glance, and even if you got in depth with it, you still probably couldn't form a truly solid conclusion on the matter.
From the conclusion:
"What if, when we really understand the laws of nature, we will realise that they could not have been different? We must be clear about the claim being made. "
This is what I have been saying. This paper does not support your opinion like you think it does.
I have no problem with how you are misunderstanding the concept and this confirms it.
Yes it was...here it is again for your convenience. [1112.4647] The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
No, I understand the concept of fine tuning, I am explaining the flaw in you concluding the universe is fine tuned because it looks like it possibly could be to you.
Thanks for the link to the article Oncedeceived. I think people might also appreciate listening to this interview with Dr. Barnes (he also wrote the article linked to by Oncedeceived), where he talks about fine tuning. It is here. Very informative, this guy really knows his stuff.
My only complaint was that for every question asked, Dr. Barnes started out giving the facts, then gave an opinion which meant an intelligent designer was required, but he never came outt and actually said an intelligent designer was required.
Anyways, this piqued my interest, so I did a bit of research. I found an article about a critique Mr. Barnes did on a book about evolution. From reading the article, I gather one of the main points of the book was to debunk ID. The article is here.
It is interesting to note that the author of the article stated: Despite his (Dr. Barnes) statements being very carefully engineered, he (Dr. Barnes) repeats many classic tactics and tropes of creationists. (Bracketed text mine) Those were my exact feelings after listening to Dr. Barnes interview, ie very carefully engineered statements.
From what I can gather, it seems Dr. Barnes is an ID proponent, and his opinions reflect his beliefs. This is not to say that he does not know his material.
There are other scientists who believe that no intelligent fine tuner is required. Whichever side of the fence you fall on, the interview is well worth a listen.
No I'm sorry but you do not understand because it doesn't look like anything to me. I can't see the values of the universe. The fine tuning is the phenomena that scientists have observed about the universe.
Thanks for the link to the article Oncedeceived. I think people might also appreciate listening to this interview with Dr. Barnes (he also wrote the article linked to by Oncedeceived), where he talks about fine tuning. It is here. Very informative, this guy really knows his stuff.
My only complaint was that for every question asked, Dr. Barnes started out giving the facts, then gave an opinion which meant an intelligent designer was required, but he never came outt and actually said an intelligent designer was required.
Anyways, this piqued my interest, so I did a bit of research. I found an article about a critique Mr. Barnes did on a book about evolution. From reading the article, I gather one of the main points of the book was to debunk ID. The article is here.
It is interesting to note that the author of the article stated: Despite his (Dr. Barnes) statements being very carefully engineered, he (Dr. Barnes) repeats many classic tactics and tropes of creationists. (Bracketed text mine) Those were my exact feelings after listening to Dr. Barnes interview, ie very carefully engineered statements.
From what I can gather, it seems Dr. Barnes is an ID proponent, and his opinions reflect his beliefs. This is not to say that he does not know his material.
There are other scientists who believe that no intelligent fine tuner is required. Whichever side of the fence you fall on, the interview is well worth a listen.
Observed fine tuning? You can't observe that, it is impossible, with no means of understanding exactly how variable a universe can be, and given we don't understand most of physics in general, how can you possibly claim this? For all we know, any universe generated will have the same physics parameters because that is the only viable sort of existence, with countless numbers of failures that just wink out shortly after forming
Even your source gave many physics properties 5% wiggle room. Physics apparenly has more wiggle room than some political polls. And that is just the supposed physics range for life as we know it, who knows what could exist in different physics.
No, we don't need an answer. I don't.No, I think I understand completely what he is saying and it does support my position.
Right now, with what we know there is no reason to believe that they couldn't be different. However, that is not the issue. The issue is the fine tuning we do know of now and even if we come to realize they could not have been different there will still need to be an answer to why.
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?