Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

I'll just let you argue with yourself here.

Like I said before, we know that the universe as a whole whether we only observe 4% of it or not is fine tuned to exist and for life to exist.

 

[tallbouy]

Like I said before, we know that the universe as a whole whether we only observe 4% of it or not is fine tuned to exist and for life to exist.

How much of that 4% would you say was conducive to life?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How much of that 4% would you say was conducive to life?

Haven't a clue.

 

[[serious]]

Strange that many phycists themselves claim that the multiverse is unfalsifiable.

You keep talking about this "many physicists" yet l haven't seen any links.

Well, there was the one where you posted something that supported multiverse interpretations. That's what started all of this. You then said you were fine with multiverses, so all of a sudden changing your mind when you realize it's inconvenient to the argument at the moment seems suspicious.

 

[[serious]]

Time didn't exist and then it did either at the beginning of the Big Bang or shortly after inflation. Nothing would mean not anything.

Nothing and not anything are synonymous. That isn't the issue. Your argument is internally inconsistant. If it doesn't exist, nothing can exist or not exist within it.

Going back to the box analogy. There is no box. What is inside the box that doesn't actually exist? Would it be ridiculous to take a firm opinion that a pretend box is empty? Same thing here.

Before the big bang is outside our universe (is a causality way, not in a space way). Nothing inside our universe is outside our universe by definition. Nothing outside our universe can be observed or determined from within our universe.

 

[[serious]]

That is due to God not being a natural entity. God is a necessary eternal cause, a naturalistic universe generator would need to be fine tuned to allow for a fine tuned universe as ours. There would be no reason to conclude otherwise.

That doesn't explain anything. You introduce several undefined terms, and then claim rules apply to some undefined terms, but not others.

What is a "natural entity" and how do we determine if something is one?

What is a "necessary eternal cause" and how do we determine if something is one? Why can "natural entities" not also be "necessary eternal causes"?

What is a "naturalistic universe generator"? What requires them to be fine tuned, but not other than naturalistic universe generators?

All you've done is repeat your special pleading with new terms peppered in there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You keep talking about this "many physicists" yet l haven't seen any links.

Well, there was the one where you posted something that supported multiverse interpretations. That's what started all of this. You then said you were fine with multiverses, so all of a sudden changing your mind when you realize it's inconvenient to the argument at the moment seems suspicious.

I am not changing my mind. I told you from the start that I didn't care about multiverses.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nothing and not anything are synonymous. That isn't the issue. Your argument is internally inconsistant. If it doesn't exist, nothing can exist or not exist within it.

Going back to the box analogy. There is no box. What is inside the box that doesn't actually exist? Would it be ridiculous to take a firm opinion that a pretend box is empty? Same thing here.

Before the big bang is outside our universe (is a causality way, not in a space way). Nothing inside our universe is outside our universe by definition. Nothing outside our universe can be observed or determined from within our universe.

I've said I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't explain anything. You introduce several undefined terms, and then claim rules apply to some undefined terms, but not others.

What is a "natural entity" and how do we determine if something is one?

What is a "necessary eternal cause" and how do we determine if something is one? Why can "natural entities" not also be "necessary eternal causes"?

What is a "naturalistic universe generator"? What requires them to be fine tuned, but not other than naturalistic universe generators?

All you've done is repeat your special pleading with new terms peppered in there.

I'm busy right now so I'll come back to this.

 

[tallbouy]

Haven't a clue.

But you seem so sure about fine tuning yet you don't know who did it or why they did it or even how much they set aside for life to live on, I think you're simply clutching at straws because it's imperative that it's true for you to maintain your sanity,
what would you do if your religion was just like all the rest, a hoax?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you claiming that actions of people are not "phenomena of reality"? Or just that actions of people cannot be explained by science?

Ow come on man....

We are talking about the natural sciences and building models that make predictions so that those models are testable.

Phenomena like formation of planets, evolution of life, the nature of desease, workings of climate, erosion, shifting of continents, earthquakes, volcano's, lightning..............

A person or group dropping a letter in a mailbox and organizing an event every week is not in the same category. And I'm baffled that I need to point that out.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Regardless of the rest of the universe, what it takes for the universe to exist the WHOLE universe and life on earth is fine tuned.

In hindsight, everything is fine tuned for whatever it does or contains.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no consensus.

So, your point is merely stating the obvious?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scientists say:

Nothing happens by chance or outside the Universal Laws. Every Action has a reaction or consequence "We reap what we sow". Ralph Waldo Emerson said the Law of Cause and Effect is the "law of laws". The most important lesson involving human conduct and interation is seen in the Cosmic Law of Cause and Effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Every human thought, word and deed is a Cause that sets off a wave of energy throughout the universe which in turn creates the effect whether desirable or undesirable. The law states the effect must to physical manifestation. This is why good thoughts, words, emotions, and deeds are essential for a better world for the all create good effects.

With every thought of intention, action and emotion that is transmitted from you, a person sets into motion unseen chain of effects which vibrate from the mental plane thought the entire cellular structure of body out into the environment and finally into the Cosmos. Eventually the vibratory energy returns to the original source upon the swing of the pendulum.

The law of cause and effect states that every cause has an effect and every effect becomes the cause of something else. This law suggests that the universe is always in motion and progressed from a chain of events.

http://lawsoftheuniverse.weebly.com/law-of-cause-and-effect.html

Try addressing the point you are quoting.

 

[AdamSK]

But you seem so sure about fine tuning yet you don't know who did it or why they did it or even how much they set aside for life to live on, I think you're simply clutching at straws because it's imperative that it's true for you to maintain your sanity,
what would you do if your religion was just like all the rest, a hoax?

Other religions aren't hoaxes. Being mistaken isn't the same as lying.

 

[AdamSK]

In hindsight, everything is fine tuned for whatever it does or contains.

Paraphrasing Douglas Adams - the puddle is quite impressed by how well the hole is shaped to fit it.

 

[AdamSK]

Ow come on man....

We are talking about the natural sciences and building models that make predictions so that those models are testable.

Phenomena like formation of planets, evolution of life, the nature of desease, workings of climate, erosion, shifting of continents, earthquakes, volcano's, lightning..............

A person or group dropping a letter in a mailbox and organizing an event every week is not in the same category. And I'm baffled that I need to point that out.

We are talking about the limits of science and predictability. Elusive entities are not necessarily as predictable as erosion or continental drift.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But you seem so sure about fine tuning yet you don't know who did it or why they did it or even how much they set aside for life to live on, I think you're simply clutching at straws because it's imperative that it's true for you to maintain your sanity,
what would you do if your religion was just like all the rest, a hoax?

I did not "make up" fine tuning. Fine tuning is a scientific phenomena that was labeled such by the scientists. It is real and at this time there are groups of scientists that are trying to find out why in naturalistic terms our universe in an unlikely way is tuned not only for the existence of the universe but for life as we know to exist here.

It may difficult for you to understand but I didn't need religion nor think much about it until God made His presence known to me. My sanity and the sanity of millions and millions of others is quite safe. God is not a hoax.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't explain anything. You introduce several undefined terms, and then claim rules apply to some undefined terms, but not others.

Strange that most people on the planet have a sense of what it means by the word God, how God is eternal and uncaused and how that would relate to the necessary element of His nature.

What is a "natural entity" and how do we determine if something is one?

You don't know what natural means? Simply stated it is a part of the physical world which in all is the universe.

What is a "necessary eternal cause" and how do we determine if something is one? Why can "natural entities" not also be "necessary eternal causes"?

A necessary eternal cause is one that explains why there is something rather than nothing. A necessary cause explains why there are contingent beings in a universe and a universe rather than absolutely nothing. The reason that a natural entity has less likelihood of being a necessary eternal cause is that the physical world came into being, it was not always eternal and the physical world is limited by its not being eternal, thus anything of the natural world is finite and not eternal and by coming into existence is not necessary for if it were necessary for itself to exist it could not exist.

What is a "naturalistic universe generator"? What requires them to be fine tuned, but not other than naturalistic universe generators?

If there is more than one universe it would take trillions and trillions of them to explain the fine tuning of ours. This is not my estimation but that of the scientists that determine these things. For the fine tuning that is present in our universe the very first universe had to be fine tuned to give us our fine tuning .

Dr. Robin Collins has made an argument and argues that a “multiverse-generator” doesn’t eliminate the need for fine-tuning. The analogy he uses is that of a bread machine, which must have the right structure, programs, and ingredients (flour, water, yeast, and gluten) in order to produce decent loaves of bread. The same holds true, with the problem with a “multiverse-generator”, whether of the inflationary variety or some other type, is that the laws of the multiverse generator must be just right and fine tuned in order for it to produce universes whose constants and initial conditions permit the subsequent emergence of life and according to physicists this too in this scenario is pretty rare. So the problem of fine tuning is not eliminated but is necessary for the multiverse generator and if it is of a physical nature it would be in need of a beginning.

All you've done is repeat your special pleading with new terms peppered in there.

I've given evidence supported by science. What I have done is take theology that has been established for thousands of years about God being eternal and necessary as stated in theism, which I feel better explains the universe and us as contingent beings than naturalism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In hindsight, everything is fine tuned for whatever it does or contains.

In hindsight of what? If that was true, our universe could be here no matter what the parameters were. That isn't the case.