The fine tuning of the universe.

[DogmaHunter]

Well that's fun but of course it is only fun and does nothing to explain the cause of gravity.

Why not?

 

[quatona]

So, to summarize, there´s still no explanation how to bridge the gap from "if the constants were different, there wouldn´t be life (as we know it)" to "it has been fine-tuned/it is designed" - other than a naive common sense approach applied to the origins of the universe ("it resembles our design, so it is reasonable to assume it´s designed by a supernatural entity").

But even if we´d accept this naive common sense approach for a moment and for sake of the argument, my common sense tells me that designing an incredibly huge universe for (the purpose of) life on one or few incredibly insignificant planets appears to be extremely poor design - unelegant and with a ridiculous amount of redundance. It´s like assuming that a car has been designed for the purpose of there being a glovebox light fuse.

 

[AV1611VET]

But even if we´d accept this naive common sense approach for a moment and for sake of the argument, my common sense tells me that designing an incredibly huge universe for (the purpose of) life on one or few incredibly insignificant planets appears to be extremely poor design - unelegant and with a ridiculous amount of redundance. It´s like assuming that a car has been designed for the purpose of there being a glovebox light fuse.

Ever heard of angels?

Maybe they'd like a little R&R on a planet created for them, eh?

 

[quatona]

Ever heard of angels?

Yes: in religious context, not in scientific context - which is the context within which Mrs. Oncedeceived would like to score points fro a supernatural designer.

Maybe they'd like a little R&R on a planet created for them, eh?

Yeah, now that you mention it: the universe appears to be fine-tuned for R&R.

 

[RickG]

This is not silly. You haven't shown how the

No it isn't.

It is absolutely silly. I make a point that your claim does not correlate because correlation must have causation which it doesn't. Then you go off on a non sequitur tangent with gravity ignoring my question.

I'm not here to play childish games, I'm here to discuss science in Christian forum in an adult manner.

 

[RickG]

Ever heard of angels?

Angles can take a hike in the Science forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes: in religious context, not in scientific context -

That's cause science is myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Angles can take a hike in the Science forum.

Then don't make comments like in Post 2262, or I'll be happy to enlighten you on what you're overlooking.

 

[quatona]

That's cause science is myopic.

Your opinion is noted.
If you are so inclined to ignore the reference frame of this thread, you better take it up with Oncedeceived.

 

[RickG]

Then don't make comments like in Post 2262, or I'll be happy to enlighten you on what you're overlooking.

Post 2262 is not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Post 2262 is not mine.

No kidding?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your opinion is noted.
If you are so inclined to ignore the reference frame of this thread, you better take it up with Oncedeceived.

Almost 2300 posts in this thread, and you're harping on its reference frame?

Welcome to CF.

 

[KCfromNC]

I know they come from my sources. They are numbers on probabilities of different features.

Yes, I've already pointed out you've failed to answer my actual question. Round and round we go.

 

[KCfromNC]

What?

Which word didn't you understand?

 

[KCfromNC]

Yeah, one of his other books seemed to promote a one universe at a time model. He was writing the book with another person though, so that might be the difference.

Or it could be that someone in this thread is confusing speculation done by people who happen to be scientists with actual scientific conclusions. Given that we can't seem to get a consistent answer to many obvious questions, seems like a likely an answer as anything.

 

[KCfromNC]

But even if we´d accept this naive common sense approach for a moment and for sake of the argument, my common sense tells me that designing an incredibly huge universe for (the purpose of) life on one or few incredibly insignificant planets appears to be extremely poor design - unelegant and with a ridiculous amount of redundance. It´s like assuming that a car has been designed for the purpose of there being a glovebox light fuse.

This is an interesting approach. Accept that the universe was designed by god, but the design it chose to meet the alleged goals of the design is just terrible. Conclusion : inept designer. It is something to make fun of, not worship.

 

[quatona]

Almost 2300 posts in this thread, and you're harping on its reference frame?

Moreso, I was "harping on" the reference frame of the ongoing discussion that you crashed into with your irrelevant remark.

Welcome to CF.

Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that we can't seem to get a consistent answer to many obvious questions,

Sounds like my challenge threads.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You: What causes gravity?
Me: God.
You: Well that's fun but of course it is only fun and does nothing to explain the cause of gravity.

Yes, I knew what you were referring to. shown how we need to demonstrate the causation with data either. That was the point.

 

[[serious]]

Yes.

Could you give me a little more about his conclusions in the book then? I'm looking at checking it out from the library but would like to know a bit more about what to expect. What is his view of the multiverse in this book? Does he feel this explains any fine tuning?