Fine tuning, a new approach

[DogmaHunter]

I was supporting the claim DH. That is the point. There was a claim: The universe had a beginning. Support: The link provided supported that claim.

No, you decided to focus on a side comment I made (being: "I could actually even nitpick about your use of the words "start" and "begin".") and ignored the actual points being made. So indeed, focussing on the pixel and ignoring the big picture.

I didn't ask you to prove anything. I said, if you don't know then you can't possibly know that God is not the answer. Your a priori worldview is the only reason you would not consider God.

Again with the backwardness....
I don't require reasons to NOT consider something. I require the exact opposite: reasons TO consider something.

I don't have any a priori beliefs concerning gods. YOU have such a priori beliefs. I do NOT have those beliefs.

And not only do your beliefs lead you to consider a god... no... your beliefs require you to not only consider a god, but to dogmatically accept it as a reality.

I'll consider your god the second you can demonstrate it to be a legit and valid proposition. And saying "well, you can't know that there is NO god" is not such a valid and legit reason. As I have explained already.

A supreme Being is a very rational explanation for the fine tuning of the universe a undetectable 7-headed dragon is not.

They are equally rational and probable, because they have the exact same evidence in support of it: none.

You make your own argument nonsensical and unconvincing by ignoring real evidence

What evidence?

and by considering something that billions of people see as true and making up something as an analogy that no one even claims exists.

Beliefs aren't evidence. Beliefs require evidence. Got any?

But you see that is the problem you just have the opinion that it is imagination and isn't reality but that is not true.

The problem here is your lack of reading comprehension skills.
I didn't say god is imaginary. I said that this god idea can't be differentiated from imaginary. Because it is an unfalsifiable, unsupportable idea. By definition.

This means that it can't be shown to be correct. Just like anything else that falls in the same category. Like extra-dimensional aliens, unicorns and undetectable graviton pixies.

You believe it to be true but you don't know that it is true.

No. I don't accept the claim that it is true. Which is not the same as accepting the exact opposite of the claim as true.

I'm sorry that you apparantly can't comprehend the difference (or simply don't wish to understand the difference, off course).

Yes, and FSM can be proven to be just a made up character.

I'ld love to see you prove that this entity does not exist.

There are few people of the world that would claim pixies exist.

So?

All other gods are mutually exclusive to the Biblical God and just because there are other religions and other gods does not make the Biblical God non-existent.

WOOOOSH.

That was the sound of the point flying over your head. Again.

Extra dimensional higher aliens might possibly exist, I don't know. But because I don't know, I would not say they simply don't exist or are imaginary when I don't have any experience with anything that might be considered extra dimensional higher aliens.

But would you wrap yourself in tin foil, to avoid these aliens to spy on you?

 

[tallbouy]

This seems to be a common fallacy among non-believers or former believers. It seems that they seem to think belief in God is a self contained self induced state of mind. The revelation of God is not just a nice little feeling.

Sorry but it is, it's all contained and happening in your mind, if you stopped believing where would your God go? back into thin air where it came from.
I bet you think that the people who stop believing were never real Christians in the first place, however, they thought they were just as you do.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I've supported my claims.
Claims:
1. The universe is fine tuned to exist and for life to exist as we know it.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf
I gave a list of scientists that agree that the universe if fine tuned: There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact.

Most of these Scientists Don't accept fine tuning.

Yes, they all do. Show any paper or article that shows that any of them don't.

Some of these Quotes you gave quoted Scientists talking about the "Appearance of" or "Apparent" fine tuning, not Actual fine tuning.

False. Provide documentation of that claim please.

From Richard Dawkins Foundation: "Why Does the Universe Appear Fined Tuned for Life?"

Brian Greene | Why is our Universe fine tuned for life? - Make sure you read all of it now, not just the title...
and when @AdamSK pointed out your use of Dawkins...

Again, I didn't use a quote for Dawkins. But you are correct, Dawkins is one who believes that all the apparent design in the universe and in biological life is an illusion. Interestingly enough, he really never provides evidence that all that apparent design is an illusion.

Bold and underlined as per below...

I've supported my claims.
Claims:
1. The universe is fine tuned to exist and for life to exist as we know it.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf
I gave a list of scientists that agree that the universe if fine tuned: There are a great many scientists, of varying religious persuasions, who accept that the universe is fine-tuned for life, e.g. Barrow, Carr, Carter, Davies, Dawkins, Deutsch, Ellis, Greene, Guth, Harrison, Hawking, Linde, Page, Penrose, Polkinghorne, Rees, Sandage, Smolin, Susskind, Tegmark, Tipler, Vilenkin, Weinberg, Wheeler, Wilczek. They differ, of course, on what conclusion we should draw from this fact.

I said he was a scientist that believed in fine tuning, I didn't use him in any of my quotes.

...but Dawkins Doesn't. Neither does Brian Greene, whom you've also listed as supporting Fine Tuning. That's just Two brought up in a matter of minutes. How can you be so Dishonest? It's RIGHT THERE! I've come to an undeniable realisation here. Creationists are deliberately dishonest & underhanded in their dealings. That you obviously struggle to reconcile reality and your personal beliefs should be ringing alarm bells for you, and you're performing mental gymnastics to rival the Chinese Gymnastics Team on Steroids... so you obviously do know there's a problem.

Honest question, if your God were real, do you honestly think that blatant lying is something he'd appreciate? Or is it that you think your God is speaking through you, and therefore he's the one lying??

 

[KCfromNC]

Believe what you wish.

Yes, I'll continue to "believe" that polytheists exist no matter how much you pretend they don't. I'm funny that way.

Cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

And how does this work in situations where time doesn't exist?

2. Scientists claim that the universe is unlikely to have the parameters that are set precisely as they are to allow a life permitting universe to exist.
I gave a half a dozen or so quotes from prominent scientists that make this claim.

But you've failed in telling us the consensus scientific view on exactly how unlikely a life-permitting universe is.

I've answered all questions addressed to me.

If that's what you need to tell yourself...

I gave a link that you must have missed that provided support to that conclusion.
Here is another:
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

I went to a meeting of some theologians and cosmologists. Basically, I realized these theologians have the same problem with God. What was He doing before He created the universe? Why did He suddenly decide to create the universe?

Sounds like he brings up the same issues many of us do - mainly, that god doesn't seem to actually be an explanation.

But I was asking about how you're sure that god existed forever. And come to think of it, what does forever mean before time existed?

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree, the consensus of the physicists is that the origins of the universe are unknown.

They why are you so insistent that it must have come from nothing?

 

[KCfromNC]

We could sort this out pretty easily if you'd just post the papers where they calculate a consensus number for exactly how unlikely they've determined our universe to be. For some reason, you seem to be trying to do everything but that. Whatever this happens to be it isn't a collection of peer-reviewed papers establishing a well-grounded scientific consensus.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You mean, besides all the work he did during his carreer as an evolutionary biologist, along with the many many books he wrote on the topic like The Selfish Gene, The Ancestor's Tale, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Blind Watchmaker,... ?

Yep, if there is evidence that design is an illusion no one has ever presented it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They why are you so insistent that it must have come from nothing?

Because that is what they say. I've shown you two links that confirm that is what they say.

 

[KCfromNC]

Most of these Scientists Don't accept fine tuning.

Some of these Quotes you gave quoted Scientists talking about the "Appearnace of" or "Apparent" fine tuning, not Actual fine tuning.

In addition to the problem you pointed out, the post was also an attempt at being tricky by playing word games. The list is of people who accept fine tuning as a hypothetical thought experiment, in the sense of "if things were different they'd be different". Very few of them accept the fine tuning argument for god, which is what she hoped we'd be tricked into thinking. The two are obviously very different - and the fact that there are a number of non-Christians in her list should make it obvious that something's not on the up and up.

 

[AdamSK]

Because that is what they say.

That's what some of them say, but even they acknowledge that there is not yet a consensus in cosmology about it. It is the hypothesis they are working to support.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because that is what they say. I've shown you two links that confirm that is what they say.

Two whole links doesn't establish a consensus. This is really weird. Did you forget that you already admitted you know that there's no scientific consensus?

 

[KCfromNC]

Yep, if there is evidence that design is an illusion no one has ever presented it.

Have you read each of the references in the quote you're responding to, or is this another case of you knowing what is in books and papers without having to look at them?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We could sort this out pretty easily if you'd just post the papers where they calculate a consensus number for exactly how unlikely they've determined our universe to be. For some reason, you seem to be trying to do everything but that. Whatever this happens to be it isn't a collection of peer-reviewed papers establishing a well-grounded scientific consensus.

Do you know how they determine the universe is unlikely? This is one of the steps in determining it. You are like someone that demands to know just where the map to the treasure is while standing on the x that marks the spot.

This is how scientist work KC. This is about the calculations used to determine that. The other link was another. They take all these pieces and each one is so unlikely that together it becomes almost impossible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Two whole links doesn't establish a consensus. This is really weird. Did you forget that you already admitted you know that there's no scientific consensus?

Do you remember what I said there was no consensus on by any chance?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Have you read each of the references in the quote you're responding to, or is this another case of you knowing what is in books and papers without having to look at them?

Coming from someone who instead of using science to defend their point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In addition to the problem you pointed out, the post was also an attempt at being tricky by playing word games. The list is of people who accept fine tuning as a hypothetical thought experiment, in the sense of "if things were different they'd be different". Very few of them accept the fine tuning argument for god, which is what she hoped we'd be tricked into thinking. The two are obviously very different - and the fact that there are a number of non-Christians in her list should make it obvious that something's not on the up and up.

I have been completely open about the majority of scientists do not accept God as an answer. You are tying to malign me personally when I've been very clear in stating that is not the case.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's what some of them say, but even they acknowledge that there is not yet a consensus in cosmology about it. It is the hypothesis they are working to support.

Your point? I didn't say there was a consensus. I supported my point by the scientists that make that claim. In no way did I imply it was a consensus.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...but Dawkins Doesn't. Neither does Brian Greene, whom you've also listed as supporting Fine Tuning. That's just Two brought up in a matter of minutes. How can you be so Dishonest? It's RIGHT THERE! I've come to an undeniable realisation here. Creationists are deliberately dishonest & underhanded in their dealings. That you obviously struggle to reconcile reality and your personal beliefs should be ringing alarm bells for you, and you're performing mental gymnastics to rival the Chinese Gymnastics Team on Steroids... so you obviously do know there's a problem.

Honest question, if your God were real, do you honestly think that blatant lying is something he'd appreciate? Or is it that you think your God is speaking through you, and therefore he's the one lying??

Dawkins does too, he just believes that there will be a reason for it. Please provide support for Brian Greene not accepting fine tuning.

I haven't been dishonest at all. I've stated REPEATEDLY, that the majority of scientists do not invoke God as an answer to the fine tuning problem.
I've given support for all my claims concerning the universe and fine tuning.
I have not lied what so ever.

All I've seen from the atheists on this thread is accusations on my character, assertions without any support whatsoever and to me that looks like people who are afraid of the truth.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Dawkins does too, he just believes that there will be a reason for it. Please provide support for Brian Greene not accepting fine tuning.

Here, this link for the second time...
You should read the whole transcript, but this is an analogy he uses to explain why the fine tuning thing isn't fine tuning within the Multiverse hypothesis that he supports:

"12:43 An early example comes from the great astronomer Johannes Kepler who was obsessed with understanding a different number -- why the Sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth. And he worked for decades trying to explain this number, but he never succeeded, and we know why. Kepler was asking the wrong question.

13:06 We now know that there are many planets at a wide variety of different distances from their host stars. So hoping that the laws of physics will explain one particular number, 93 million miles, well that is simply wrongheaded. Instead the right question to ask is, why do we humans find ourselves on a planet at this particular distance, instead of any of the other possibilities? And again, that's a question we can answer. Those planets which are much closer to a star like the Sun would be so hot that our form of life wouldn't exist. And those planets that are much farther away from the star, well they're so cold that, again, our form of life would not take hold. So we find ourselves on a planet at this particular distance simply because it yields conditions vital to our form of life. And when it comes to planets and their distances, this clearly is the right kind of reasoning. The point is, when it comes to universes and the dark energy that they contain, it may also be the right kind of reasoning."
​

Brian Greene | Why is our Universe fine tuned for life?

So, to help you out - Why we find ourselves on a planet at just the right distance from our star is why we find ourselves in a universe that life as we know it could exist. There are more stars in this universe than there are grains of sand on this planet. Given that each of these stars have a handful of planets each, it's inevitable that life would be able to occur, because even a fractionally small percentage of planets that are found at the right distance from their stars would yield trillions upon trillions of potentially hospitable planets that life could form on. There's far too many for it to not happen. Same for a Universe that supports life in a Multiverse model, there are so many Universes that eventually, one would be able to support life. In fact, there would be so many Universes that a universe like this wouldn't just happen once, it would invariably be happening continuously throughout all the Multiverse, in amongst the failed universes that didn't amount to anything - If this multiverse is true, then there are so many other universes that there will be other universes with other you's, me's and everyone else's discussing this very same thing in their universes... not a whit of fine tuning required.

I haven't been dishonest at all. I've stated REPEATEDLY, that the majority of scientists do not invoke God as an answer to the fine tuning problem.
I've given support for all my claims concerning the universe and fine tuning.
I have not lied what so ever.

All I've seen from the atheists on this thread is accusations on my character, assertions without any support whatsoever and to me that looks like people who are afraid of the truth.

I think I might know what's going on then. What do you think when a Science talks about how something appears to be fine tuned, then goes on to explain why it isn't actually so? Do you consider that support for fine tuning?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here, this link for the second time...
You should read the whole transcript, but this is an analogy he uses to explain why the fine tuning thing isn't fine tuning within the Multiverse hypothesis that he supports:

"12:43 An early example comes from the great astronomer Johannes Kepler who was obsessed with understanding a different number -- why the Sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth. And he worked for decades trying to explain this number, but he never succeeded, and we know why. Kepler was asking the wrong question.

13:06 We now know that there are many planets at a wide variety of different distances from their host stars. So hoping that the laws of physics will explain one particular number, 93 million miles, well that is simply wrongheaded. Instead the right question to ask is, why do we humans find ourselves on a planet at this particular distance, instead of any of the other possibilities? And again, that's a question we can answer. Those planets which are much closer to a star like the Sun would be so hot that our form of life wouldn't exist. And those planets that are much farther away from the star, well they're so cold that, again, our form of life would not take hold. So we find ourselves on a planet at this particular distance simply because it yields conditions vital to our form of life. And when it comes to planets and their distances, this clearly is the right kind of reasoning. The point is, when it comes to universes and the dark energy that they contain, it may also be the right kind of reasoning."
​

Brian Greene | Why is our Universe fine tuned for life?

So, to help you out - Why we find ourselves on a planet at just the right distance from our star is why we find ourselves in a universe that life as we know it could exist. There are more stars in this universe than there are grains of sand on this planet. Given that each of these stars have a handful of planets each, it's inevitable that life would be able to occur, because even a fractionally small percentage of planets that are found at the right distance from their stars would yield trillions upon trillions of potentially hospitable planets that life could form on. There's far too many for it to not happen. Same for a Universe that supports life in a Multiverse model, there are so many Universes that eventually, one would be able to support life. In fact, there would be so many Universes that a universe like this wouldn't just happen once, it would invariably be happening continuously throughout all the Multiverse, in amongst the failed universes that didn't amount to anything - If this multiverse is true, then there are so many other universes that there will be other universes with other you's, me's and everyone else's discussing this very same thing in their universes... not a whit of fine tuning required.

This is a conclusion. The evidence is the parameters of the fundamental constants. This conclusion is that the fine tuning can be explained by the multiverse hypothesis. See the difference? He believes that the fine tuning can be explained by the multiverse, he still knows that those numbers are real, they are just the way they are because there are so many options for how they turn out.

I think I might know what's going on then. What do you think when a Science talks about how something appears to be fine tuned, then goes on to explain why it isn't actually so? Do you consider that support for fine tuning?

They hypothesize why they might not be so. They make theories of why they are that way but the evidence shows they are that way.