The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

People have pointed out to you that you haven't. The person kicking and spitting at bums may think that he is the same sort of Christian as you are, but I would bet that you would disagree.

That is why I asked for your personal interpretation of this. You can't pass the buck onto scientists just as the person spiting on and kicking the homeless can't tell pass on his bad behaviors to Jesus.

This doesn't even make sense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope, at best you seem to be misinterpreting scientific claims. Name one that I have ignored.

Personally the only claim I have made is that I believe God is a better explanation than a naturalistic one. This is it. How in the world would I be misinterpreting scientific claims when that is all I've presented?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You claim to use the same one that scientists use, but it seems that you are only picking and choosing at best. And you have only yourself to blame that the debate has not started successfully. You have not been open and clear about what you believe.

Then provide a definition of your own from a known astrophysicist that has written about fine tuning being a real phenomena that would counter what I used.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Nice group!

Tell the girl in the middle in the red that the peace sign are the two fingers pointed outward!

They get a little confused. She is actually the one that my wife went to college with.

 

[lesliedellow]

What is sad is that you have lost it completely.

No, you have. You not only do not believe in God, but you cannot stomach the idea that other people do. That speaks of insecurity on your part.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Joshua, you don't "know" anything when it comes to God.

Really nothing? Wow that is pretty amazing for someone not to know anything at all. As long as we are on the subject we are told: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." Jer29:13 So if you want to know anything at all about God then the place to start is to seek Him with all your heart.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did you have a point here?

I explained that the point Collins was making was that God knows the end from the beginning. Life is not a random process at all. As Collins says:

"In the very moment of that flash in which the universe was created, an unimaginable burst of energy, God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy. And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for him and this knowledge of good and evil. And all of that happened in his mind in the blink of an eye. While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God."

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...cientific-adventures.aspx#1S7loOhF9SD3gkXv.99

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This doesn't even make sense.

He's basically saying "Explain 'fine tuning' in your own words." That means not using a scientific definition, not using another person's definition of the phrase. Just your own words, your own definition of the term.

 

[Athée]

I used Luke Barnes definition because he has done a great deal of research into the fine tuning of the universe. Why he says possible sets is because we know what our set of physics are and what they cause for the universe; using those they tweak the measurements/values to see what would happen if they were different.

OK so what you seem to be saying is that there exists an observable set of facts about the universe. If we changed them things would be different. My question in this part would be, how do we know we can change them? We can speculate I guess, but we don't know of any universe where things are different so we can't actually test this. We also don't know how dependant or independent these are (willing to be corrected in this , not my area) that is do we know that there is no link between those 30 things such that if you have number X present the way it is, then all the others are necessarily what we observe?

Anyway my summary of your initial part of the argument runs something like this.
In our universe there are specific values of various forces or facts of reality. These values are consistent with producing life as we know it. We can hypothesize that if we were to change some of these values by very minimal degrees , that life as we know it would not be possible (the exact reason depending on what change we hyppthesize)
Is that all you are trying to establish to begin with? Feel free to tweak this, I don't want to put words in your mouth, I just want to make sure I am on the same page

 

[lesliedellow]

OK so what you seem to be saying is that there exists an observable set of facts about the universe. If we changed them things would be different. My question in this part would be, how do we know we can change them? We can speculate I guess

To take a rather extreme example, we know what would happen if the negative charge on electrons suddenly became positive. Well, playing around the the fundamental constants, to see what would happen, is just a more sophisticated version of that.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you have. You not only do not believe in God, but you cannot stomach the idea that other people do. That speaks of insecurity on your part.

I think this dude is a sock.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He's basically saying "Explain 'fine tuning' in your own words." That means not using a scientific definition, not using another person's definition of the phrase. Just your own words, your own definition of the term.

Why? Is one I make up better or more valid than what the scientists themselves define it?

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you against science for some reason?

Is this your idea of staying "on track?"

 

[AirPo]

To take a rather extreme example, we know what would happen if the negative charge on electrons suddenly became positive. Well, playing around the the fundamental constants, to see what would happen, is just a more sophisticated version of that.

Extreme or not, it's still just a thought expierment and has no basis in reality.

 

[AirPo]

Science is all about that. Are you against science for some reason?

Science is not about making things up. Making things up is science fiction.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK so what you seem to be saying is that there exists an observable set of facts about the universe. If we changed them things would be different. My question in this part would be, how do we know we can change them? We can speculate I guess, but we don't know of any universe where things are different so we can't actually test this. We also don't know how dependant or independent these are (willing to be corrected in this , not my area) that is do we know that there is no link between those 30 things such that if you have number X present the way it is, then all the others are necessarily what we observe?

Rationality. Gotta love ya. Even if we don't and probably won't agree your rational demeanor is like a breath of fresh air!!!!

Ok. Yes. But rather I would say there is a measurable set of facts about the universe that if they were different would prohibit either the universe existing or intelligent life as we know it existing.

We don't know with absolute certainty that there is no mega-law that might explain them all in one giant sweep but with the way it is no, there is no law that show they are all related to one another. There are some that are, but there are just as many that are independent.

We can do more than speculate. For instance lets take the abiogenesis question as an example. We don't know how life actually began but scientists know things about what life requires and what needs to be present in the forming of life to create experiments to aid them in learning about how it might have come about. Knowing certain things that would not aid in life's origin and would in fact prohibit it is not speculation but based on what we know about life and its requirements. This is similar to what we have in determining what types of consequences for the universe and life itself would have if the KNOWN measurements/values were tweaked in different ways. Take .01% smaller or larger in weak force for instance and this would happen and so they know and do not speculate in that way.

Anyway my summary of your initial part of the argument runs something like this.
In our universe there are specific values of various forces or facts of reality. These values are consistent with producing life as we know it. We can hypothesize that if we were to change some of these values by very minimal degrees , that life as we know it would not be possible (the exact reason depending on what change we hyppthesize)
Is that all you are trying to establish to begin with? Feel free to tweak this, I don't want to put words in your mouth, I just want to make sure I am on the same page

I think you've got it! If you agree that the phenomena of fine tuning is real and backed by science, then we have our starting point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Science is not about making things up. Making things up is science fiction.

This is about science. It is based on fact. Making things up as you put it is not what is being done.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is this your idea of staying "on track?"

It was in regard to it. If this person didn't value scientific methodology, it says a lot about what they will feel is of value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This doesn't even make sense.

Once again, of course it makes sense. You merely will not let yourself understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally the only claim I have made is that I believe God is a better explanation than a naturalistic one. This is it. How in the world would I be misinterpreting scientific claims when that is all I've presented?

Because of the way that you have tried to use them. Once again, I am not the only one that has noticed this.