I (and Athee - better than I did) explained the difference in the meanings. Which part did you not understand?
Upvote
0
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.
I (and Athee - better than I did) explained the difference in the meanings. Which part did you not understand?How do you differentiate between they are fine tuned and they have been fine tuned?
I know the differences between what you are providing, how do you differentiate between the two?I (and Athee - better than I did) explained the difference in the meanings. Which part did you not understand?
Just a slight correction because this often ends up getting picked on later. ..I think you meant that allows "a complex form of life" but that is just a semantic clarification.Just because there is only one universe doesn't mean that it could be easily life permitting. There are nearly 30 fundamental constants that permit complex life and most are independent and many are necessary to be precisely what they are to work with others.
So basically it is somewhere between wildly unlikely and a dead certainty that the universal constants would be compatible with life as we know it. And no matter what range along that continuum, it is certainly evidence for gods. And definitely not an argument from ignorance in any way.How does that eliminate the fine tuning in this one? You have no evidence that they could or couldn't be different we have only the evidence of fine tuning in this universe.
The fact that they are what they are and can't be different does not eliminate the fine tuning
No one knows.I know the differences between what you are providing, how do you differentiate between the two?
No, complex life takes more for a universe to provide; there is nothing semantic about it.Just a slight correction because this often ends up getting picked on later. ..I think you meant that allows "a complex form of life" but that is just a semantic clarification.
Fine tuning is consistent with a Fine Tuner. Unless fine tuning is eliminated in some way it stands as evidence of a Fine Tuner. IF the fundamental constants had been found to vary or if they were not responsible for allowing the universe to permit complex life there would be no fine tuning argument and no evidence for an Intelligent Designer but as it stands it is evidence for an Intelligent Designer.So basically it is somewhere between wildly unlikely and a dead certainty that the universal constants would be compatible with life as we know it. And no matter what range along that continuum, it is certainly evidence for gods. And definitely not an argument from ignorance in any way.
Uh huh. Sure it is.
When you come to the same conclusion no matter what the facts might be, is it really the facts leading to a that conclusion?
No one knows how to differentiate between being fine tuned or having been fine tuned but everyone wishes to dismiss the possibility of having been fine tuned.No one knows.
But the important thing to remember is that the fine tuning argument for god is in no way whatsoever an argument from ignorance. I have it on very good authority from very respected scientifical researchingers that it isn't.
No, it actually doesn't.But it sure does eliminate a vital step of the fine tuning argument for god.
I totally understand your point, I just disagree with it. If a deck (universe) has only a single card (30 constants), it would still need to be fine tuned to allow for complex life. It would just mean that the universe was specifically fine tuned to permit complex life and could do nothing but permit complex life. It would even make a better argument for God as it would show that not only did God create the universe it was specifically created for us to arise and no other group of constants were used because of that purpose. That is why the multiverse is being promoted.[/QUOTE]No, complex life takes more for a universe to provide; there is nothing semantic about it.
I see that I was not clear enough in my analogy. What I was trying to say was that if we imagine the ace of spades represents the 30 constants we have here and each other card represents a different set of constant, if we shuffle those cards up it will take some active intervention to get the clack of spades to the top. This would be analogous to the second sense of fine tuning I mentioned. Conversely if the deck only has a single card, only the ace of spades it takes no fine tuning in the second sense at all to arrive at that selection.
Any clearer?
That would be your job - because you are the one who concludes from (1) on (2).I know the differences between what you are providing, how do you differentiate between the two?
Not at all. Consider, GPS satellites depend on light traveling at a very precise speed. What are the odds that the signal from that satilite will match up with the speed of light? 100%The fact that they are what they are and can't be different does not eliminate the fine tuning and there is no physical law that provides explanation for them to be what they are so fine tuning remains unexplained. That is why the multiverse is being proposed. We know from experimentation in computer modeling that if the fundamental constants were not what they are life would not exist, so the question remains that why is our universe so fine tuned to permit life?
We know of only one universe. While there could possibly be other universes the original universe would have to have the fine tuned parameters that allow for our universe to permit life. And actually there are not an infinite number of universes that permit complex life, the opposite is actually true.
Actually, it's because inflation theory predicts multiple universes, and inflation theory seems to be on the right track in describing how our universe works.That is why the multiverse is being promoted.
It is also consistent with no fine tuner, a lot of fine tuners, me being the fine tuner (you're welcome, by the way), or an infinitive chain of fine tuners all causing each other. Since no one can provide any explanation for how universes form it is all just a guessing game.Fine tuning is consistent with a Fine Tuner.
Unless fine tuning is eliminated in some way it stands as evidence of a Fine Tuner.
Names and posts of anyone who says it is impossible that the Invisible Pink Unicorn fine tuned the universe to that My Little Pony would be made, please.No one knows how to differentiate between being fine tuned or having been fine tuned but everyone wishes to dismiss the possibility of having been fine tuned.
"Nuh huh!" A compelling and convincing argument that will certainly change people's minds. Lol.No, it actually doesn't.
Actually that is not true. Bernard Carr actually said: “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”Actually, it's because inflation theory predicts multiple universes, and inflation theory seems to be on the right track in describing how our universe works.
It isn't because the Fine Tuning argument is so persuasive that scientists just have to find some way to explain it.
If an Intelligent Being wished to create a universe specifically for created intelligent beings making certain the universe would give rise to these intelligent beings would be evident by the necessary elements for their existence be present in that universe. If the universe has those properties that allow for those life forms to exist whether they could or could not be different would not affect the outcome. If God provided the needed calculations for the universe to permit complex life and set them so that they could not be different so as to quarantee their arrival it would be 100% certainty that they would, it would still be fine tuned to allow for complex life to exist. The same is true if He took all the possible combinations and tweaked them just right with all the possibilities to allow for complex life to exist...fine tuned still shown. The only way to eliminate the fine tuning of the universe is show that complex life such as ours could exist in another universe in a different set of fundamental constants. That would show that complex life could arise with different fundamental constants and still give rise to intelligent beings.Not at all. Consider, GPS satellites depend on light traveling at a very precise speed. What are the odds that the signal from that satilite will match up with the speed of light? 100%
Is the speed of light tuned for GPS satellites? No, of course not.
Same thing here. If the constants and laws cannot be other than they are, the odds of them being what they are is 100%. Nothing is tuned because nothing can be other than it is.
As with any explanation it is what best explains the data. I believe that theism best explains the data. It makes no sense for a lot of fine tuners, you could not be the fine tuner you have not always existed, and there is no evidence for a chain of fine tuners all causing each other and it is not consistent with theism.It is also consistent with no fine tuner, a lot of fine tuners, me being the fine tuner (you're welcome, by the way), or an infinitive chain of fine tuners all causing each other. Since no one can provide any explanation for how universes form it is all just a guessing game.
Nope. See above. An observation which is consistent with mutually contradictory explanations is evidence for none of them.
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?