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.
Yes.
Which you wouldn't have even known if I had not honestly said I didn't.yeah, not the first time shes done that
Yes, why wouldn't I?So you are intentionally posting an article about our universe being one of many in a multiverse?
Ho hum. The "If the universe wasn't the way it is, we wouldn't be here," argument. Unfortunately it misses the point. There is only a very narrow range of parameters which allows the universe to a.) exist in the first place, and b.) for that universe, if it does exist, to support any kind of chemistry.
How would you know that the mathematical laws and constants describe circles if there were no circles to determine that?Once is claiming that laws cannot exist apart from the objects they describe. However, since the mathematical laws and constants that describe circles can exist apart from circles, there is no reason to assume the natural laws somehow don't work this same way.
So you are intentionally posting an article about our universe being one of many in a multiverse?
Now all you have to do is demonstrate that these parameters could have been different, and if so, that the range that allows for life is unlikely. Have fun.
They are providing their conclusions based on the evidence. I have no problem with their views and conclusions about fine tuning. They could be right, but that doesn't mean that the fine tuning problem goes away either.You're supposed to ignore the stuff that her experts say which doesn't line up with what she wishes was true. They're obviously only experts when they're saying things she agrees with.
Luke Barnes: Our definition of fine-tuning doesn’t depend on a numerical probability, but on the observation that “of all the possible universes allowed by theoretical physics, an extremely small number would allow the evolution of intelligent life”.
Luke Barnes: “to significantly change the probability of a life-permitting universe, we would need a prior [probability] that centres close to the observed value, and has a narrow peak. But this simply exchanges one fine-tuning for two — the centre and peak of the distribution.”
They are providing their conclusions based on the evidence. I have no problem with their views and conclusions about fine tuning.
They could be right, but that doesn't mean that the fine tuning problem goes away either.
Once is claiming that laws cannot exist apart from the objects they describe. However, since the mathematical laws and constants that describe circles can exist apart from circles, there is no reason to assume the natural laws somehow don't work this same way.
But that fine tuning only gets us to a universe where rocks can exist. God must be even more fine tuned to want not only rocks, but life, not only life, but intelligent life, and not only that, but life as we know it.
Now all you have to do is demonstrate that these parameters could have been different, and if so, that the range that allows for life is unlikely. Have fun.
It looks finely tuned because it works, if it didn't work we would not be here to say it looked finely tuned, the water in a hole doesn't say the hole was made just for it.I will leave that to the astrophysicists who tripped over the fact that the universe seems to be very finely tuned - to the embarrassment of some of them.
It looks finely tuned because it works, if it didn't work we would not be here to say it looked finely tuned, the water in a hole doesn't say the hole was made just for it.
Because saying numerous earlier universes existed before the big bang directly contradicts your claim that nothing existed before the big bang.Yes, why wouldn't I?