Fine tuning of the Universe

[Radrook]

My assumption is based on your claims:
1. This universe is fine tuned for life
2. There are (or will be) multiple universes that support life

Are you now saying that this universe is fine tuned for life but the others are not? That makes no sense as the other universes support life. So it must be that this universe is not fine tuned.

You're in a bit of a pickle, aren't you?

I never claimed multiple universes. The conclusion that the universe's fine tuning was involved isn't justified by my premise as you claim. Obviously if the original universe was changed it didn't involve the fine tuning since it is still here. That alone makes your accusation nonsensical. Your conclusion that the future universe will obliterate the fine tuning that was preserved during the first change is also irrational, baseless conjecture. If humans are to inhabit this universe, it is only logical to assume that the fine tuning preserved during the first modification will remain intact.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I never claimed multiple universes.

OK, given that I have already pointed out at least twice where you have made that claim I will call that an extremely dishonest statement and you know it. To make things worse for you, you also claim multiple universes in the next part of your response

The conclusion that the universe's fine tuning was involved isn't justified by my premise as you claim. Obviously if the original universe was changed it didn't involve the fine tuning since it is still here. That alone makes your accusation nonsensical. Your conclusion that the future universe will obliterate the fine tuning that was preserved during the first change is also irrational, baseless conjecture. If humans are to inhabit this universe, it is only logical to assume that the fine tuning preserved during the first modification will remain intact.

Do you understand that fine tuning for life implies that the parameters necessary for supporting life are the ones that are fine tuned? If you have multiple universes which support life but other parameters are different, which parameters do you think are being fine tuned? Hint: it's not the parameters required to support life.

 

[Radrook]

OK, given that I have already pointed out at least twice where you have made that claim I will call that an extremely dishonest statement and you know it. To make things worse for you, you also claim multiple universes in the next part of your response

Do you understand that fine tuning for life implies that the parameters necessary for supporting life are the ones that are fine tuned? If you have multiple universes which support life but other parameters are different, which parameters do you think are being fine tuned? Hint: it's not the parameters required to support life.

I cannot argue in favor of multiple universes because I have absolutely no basis to believe in contemporaneously existing multiple universe. As I clearly pointed out-what I said in that religious discussion and for that religious discussion's purpose only was that our present universe according to the Bible isn't the original version. However, I did not say that the fine tuning of it was change or that the fine tuning to support life of the universe that will replace it will be changed from its present configuration either. That is your idea not mine.

BTW
I don't bring in religion into a discussion of astronomy. I try to keep them separate. You are the one bringing in issues from other threads which are religiously oriented.

 

[Radrook]

If we find the tuner, then I'll believe in a tuning.

Funny how my guitar refuses to tune itself!

 

[durangodawood]

Funny how my guitar refuses to tune itself!

I would agree guitars need a tuner.

 

[Radrook]

I would agree guitars need a tuner.

Especially mine which un-tunes itself every five or so minutes. That might soon come to a sudden end when I decide to grab it by its scrawny neck and smash it against a tree or nearby cast iron garbage bin or lay it flat on the asphalt parking lot floor floor and jump on it with both feet while wearing hob-nailed boots. That'll tune it!

 

[durangodawood]

Especially mine which un-tunes itself every five or so minutes. That might soon come to a sudden end when I decide to grab it by its scrawny neck and smash it against a tree or nearby cast iron garbage bin or lay it flat on the asphalt parking lot floor floor and jump on it with both feet while wearing hob-nailed boots. That'll tune it!

Do you live in Victorian London or something?

 

[Radrook]

Do you live in Victorian London or something?

Why? Victorian London people had a sense of humor that you lack?

 

[durangodawood]

Why? Victorian London people had a sense of humor that you lack?

Because who makes things out of cast iron anymore?

 

[Radrook]

Because who makes things out of cast iron anymore?

Really?

-Cast Iron Litter Bins
https://www.broxap.com/street-furniture/litter-bins/cast-iron-litter-bins.html
--------------------------------------------------

Cast Iron Cookware
http://www.hayneedle.com/outdoor/cast-iron-cookware_list_176651

Cast Iron Bathtubs
http://www.signaturehardware.com/bathroom/bathtubs/cast-iron-tubs.html?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Bathtubs%20-%20Other&utm_term=cast%20iron%20bath%20tubs&utm_content=Cast%20Iron%20Tubs

Cast iron Kitchen sinks
https://www.faucet.com/cast-iron-kitchen-sinks/c85800

 

[durangodawood]

Really?...

Cool.

Finally I learned something new here!

 

[Radrook]

Just for the record, are you saying that faith is bad?

Your interpretation of biblical faith is bad.

 

[quatona]

Funny how my guitar refuses to tune itself!

Seeing how precisely it is tuned the way it is tuned is any time I grab it (albeit not the way I want it to be tuned), there must be a Higher Tuner behind the scenes.
What are the odds for a string to be tuned at precisely 138.6 Hz by random accident?

 

[Radrook]

Seeing how precisely it is tuned the way it is tuned is any time I grab it (albeit not the way I want it to be tuned), there must be a Higher Tuner behind the scenes.
What are the odds for a string to be tuned at precisely 138.6 Hz by random accident?

Not if its vibration prevents the harmonious production of melodious music along with the other five. Then it is clearly untuned, useless, and a pain in the proverbial neck. You are using equivocation BTW.

 

[quatona]

You are using equivocation BTW.

It´s more like I´m pointing out the equivocation used in your argument. Good thing you´ve spotted it!

 

[Radrook]

It´s more like I´m pointing out the equivocation used in your argument. Good thing you´ve spotted it!

Show me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because those parameters are the ones which are necessary for life as we know it to exist

That's kind of a given, isn't it, since we are here - talking about them.

and the probability of all of them converging is astronomically slim.

You don't know that.

That is an agreed-upon evaluation

To my knowledge, not a single scientists has ever demonstrated that these values could be any different.

As far as I know, any probability calculation concerning these values would be making so many assumptions that whatever probability that comes out of it, would be essentially meaningless.

BTW
As for the specifics of each one of those factors I suggest that you contact the scientists who did the calculations in order to get a meticulous explanation concerning each one.

I'ld be more interested in those scientists, who are apparantly able to calculate the probability of the universe existing in its current form.

I haven't made a claim of being a physicist nor is being a physicist necessary to do research and reach conclusions in reference to God's existence based on that research.

"God", ha?

If indeed you are personally qualified to challenge those estimates then present your evidence to the contrary instead of demanding that I explain them all.

In your previous sentences, you basically just said that you wouldn't be able to properly evaluate such evidence of the contrary. Just saying...

 

[Heissonear]

No, we're mystified because we don't know what your criteria are.
One of the most cogent objections to ID has always been the lack of a reliable test for the presence of what is said to be intelligent design in natural objects. We await your word, o wise one...

One "so happens to be"

The intensity of gravity verses energy output of stars.

Now add to that how there happens to be elements that have a gaseous state.

Equate that to gravity verses energy output of stars.

 

[Radrook]

That's kind of a given, isn't it, since we are here - talking about them.



You don't know that.



To my knowledge, not a single scientists has ever demonstrated that these values could be any different.

As far as I know, any probability calculation concerning these values would be making so many assumptions that whatever probability that comes out of it, would be essentially meaningless.



I'ld be more interested in those scientists, who are apparantly able to calculate the probability of the universe existing in its current form.



"God", ha?



In your previous sentences, you basically just said that you wouldn't be able to properly evaluate such evidence of the contrary. Just saying...

Well, your own scientists disagree with you!

As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

^ Jump up to: a b Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW

Your glaring inability to describe just how your mindless chemicals DECIDE that they need self repair and go about PLANNING and BUIlDING and Meticulously Programming such a molecular repairing device without the agency of mind and for just such a purpose indicates to me that you are very probably incapable of properly evaluating the very process you claim to understand. Just saying.

As for the exact scientists involved in the calculations, that is irrelevant. Find a flaw and point it out. Your evasion by demanding that I provide the precise scientists indicates to me that you are incapable of pointing out any flaw because of an incapacity to properly evaluate the very info you are attempting to denigrate.

God? Well, since you folks insist on bringing God into the picture despite my attempts to leave him out, I am just now starting to go along with your preferred modus operandi. Of course then you start to snicker.

As for evidence? Anything having to do with an intelligent designer is tagged meaningless by atheists. It's called invincible ignorance or as I refer to it the:

"Ï caint see Nuffin and you cain't make me!"syndrome.

 

[quatona]

Show me.

You said you had spotted it.