The fine tuning of the universe.

[Athée]

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.

So what you are saying is that life as we know it is connected to each of those values in such a way that changing any of them would render life as we know it impossible.
It still seems like it is a thought experiment and it won't get us to a probability of any sort but if the above is what you are arguing then I think I agree.

 

[lesliedellow]

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

What would happen if the fundamental constants had values other than those they do have, is, by definition, a thought experiment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is not the way that this is done. This is your claim the burden of proof is upon you to support yourself. So far you have not done so.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Yeah, except everyone else thinks it's you that doesn't value the SM.

SZ was right when he suggested you might be coy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not the way that this is done. This is your claim the burden of proof is upon you to support yourself. So far you have not done so.

If you don't think that my definition is in keeping with the scientific one then it is on you to show me I'm wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

It is dishonest to quote out of context. There was an explanation that went with that statement. Why did you edit that out? You need to learn the difference between knowledge and belief. They are not one and the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

But again, this is just a belief and not really supported by evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, except everyone else thinks it's you that doesn't value the SM.

SZ was right when he suggested you might be coy.

Ok. This is the last time that I am going to respond to personal opinions about me personally. If you wish to engage in this conversation I welcome your thoughtful and rational input but if you just wish to bash me then I won't be responding.

 

[bhsmte]

That is not the way that this is done. This is your claim the burden of proof is upon you to support yourself. So far you have not done so.

Good luck with that!

 

[Athée]

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.

With my limited knowledge of the subject I would say I agree with this starting premise.

What's next ?

 

[quatona]

With my limited knowledge of the subject I would say I agree with this starting premise.

I find it agreeable too, with one exception:

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.

(emphasis added)
I´m not sure which facts "about the universe" (external to the universe) we have. Whereas facts observed within the universe don´t seem to allow for the conclusion that they would "prohibit the universe from existing".

What's next ?

...drumroll...

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok. This is the last time that I am going to respond to personal opinions about me personally. If you wish to engage in this conversation I welcome your thoughtful and rational input but if you just wish to bash me then I won't be responding.

Pointing out character traits isn't bashing.
I'm simply pointing out that you may not get your intended desire of productive conversation, when you coyly suggest that quotona isn't interested in the SM, when everyone here knows quotna is one of the most rational members here. It's absurd.

Multiple posters have pointed out the fact you repeatedly quote mine what authorities say to fit your own personal, and when you're called out on it, you feign persecution.

"That's all I have to say about that."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

It's not better or valid, but it will actually help to explain what you mean in this thread. Because more often than not, when people who aren't scientifically educated start threads on topics like this, what they want to discuss is waaaay away from what the scientists actually talk about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

With my limited knowledge of the subject I would say I agree with this starting premise.

What's next ?

Great, since we agree about the science of fine tuning I will start my position.

I am not claiming that I have proof of God's existence. I believe that the state of affairs of the universe are those of which are best explained by an intelligent Being. The support of this will not identify this Intelligent Being but my underlying foundation is that this Intelligent Being is the God of the Bible. The reason for an Intelligent Being creating a life permitting universe comes from the Bible which in a way points toward Him.

So the argument goes like this:
1. A intelligent life supporting universe is intrinsically unlikely.
2. A powerful and intelligent Creator who wanted such a universe for the purpose of intelligent beings would explain it.
3. So the fact that we have such a universe makes it more likely that there was a powerful and Intelligent Creator to fine tune the universe to produce such beings.

Thoughts?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Pointing out character traits isn't bashing.
I'm simply pointing out that you may not get your intended desire of productive conversation, when you coyly suggest that quotona isn't interested in the SM, when everyone here knows quotna is one of the most rational members here. It's absurd.

Multiple posters have pointed out the fact you repeatedly quote mine what authorities say to fit your own personal, and when you're called out on it, you feign persecution.

"That's all I have to say about that."

Noted.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not better or valid, but it will actually help to explain what you mean in this thread. Because more often than not, when people who aren't scientifically educated start threads on topics like this, what they want to discuss is waaaay away from what the scientists actually talk about.

Fine tuning has been explained and if anyone wishes to provide the science to prove I am in error, I will of course look into it. But definitions are pretty much what they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great, since we agree about the science of fine tuning I will start begin my position.

I am not claiming that I have proof of God's existence. I believe that the state of affairs of the universe are those of which are best explained by an intelligent Being. The support of this will not identify this Intelligent Being but my underlying foundation is that this Intelligent Being is the God of the Bible. The reason for an Intelligent Being creating a life permitting universe comes from the Bible which in a way points toward Him.

So the argument goes like this:
1. A intelligent life supporting universe is intrinsically unlikely.
2. A powerful and intelligent Creator who wanted such a universe for the purpose of intelligent beings would explain it.
3. So the fact that we have such a universe makes it more likely that there was a powerful and Intelligent Creator to fine tune the universe to produce such beings.

Thoughts?

If you are going to make that sort of argument, then the unlikeliness of an Intelligent Being seems to be much greater than any of the unlikeliness that you mentioned.

For you to advance you need a more solid argument than this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you are going to make that sort of argument, then the unlikeliness of an Intelligent Being seems to be much greater than any of the unlikeliness that you mentioned.

For you to advance you need a more solid argument than this.

How do you determine the unlikeliness of an Intelligent Being?

 

[Athée]

1. A intelligent life supporting universe is intrinsically unlikely.

OK so if any of the premises fail then the argument does as well. I have objections to each one but rather than starting another monster post I will just offer obections one at a time.
My first question is how did you determine that this universe that we live in is intrinsically unlikely ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you determine the unlikeliness of an Intelligent Being?

How do you determine the unlikeliness of intelligent life?