The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

As it is not known how universes form, it is not known how these constants obtain the value that they have.

As it is not known how they obtain the value that they have, it is impossible to calculate the probability of them having the value that they have.

I have to ask, So? Do you have to know how life began to understand evolution?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then what DID you mean when you said that there is no testable data to determine what the ancestral bloodline of whales looks like?

How do you test to see if whale ancestors were whale ancestors? We can't reproduce anything in a lab that tells us, so how do we know?

 

[Oncedeceived]

31 pages and we still haven't got past "We don't know, therefore God".

No one can even agree on the science of fine tuning. So far there has been a lack of agreement with scientists on the issue.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I have to ask, So? Do you have to know how life began to understand evolution?

In the beginning was a marriage. The bond between Atoms is very much like a marriage and the first marriage for man was Adam and Eve. A chemical bond is a lasting attraction between atoms that enables the formation of chemical compounds. There are strong bonds and weak bonds. So we are strong in Christ.

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ Matt19:4

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you not have any good reason to think he is correct? Or did you just take it on faith?

This makes me smile. From your responses you ask me that? It seems you have been responding with a lack of knowledge on the subject and then point to me claiming I don't. Paul Davies is a top scientist in his field. There is what is called peer-review in the world of science. There is a conclusion based on WHAT IS KNOWN about the fundamental constants of our universe. The information THAT IS KNOWN is what scientists in the field use to determine that they are fine tuned. It isn't taken on faith.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you just want to pretend the evidence is there that's fine. Hope it makes you feel better. You're only fooling yourself, though.

Did you read it?

 

[AV1611VET]

So far there has been a lack of agreement with scientists on the issue.

Maybe they're fine tuning their science to eventually say the universe wasn't created fine tuned?

Of course, all they would have to do is say the universe wasn't created, and that would settle it with them.

But they have to look busy at something, or they'll lose funds.

SETI is an excellent example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which kinda goes back to the whole argument from ignorance, god of the gaps objection. No one has any idea if the various constants could be different and if they could be, how different they were likely to be. It's all just guesswork - and yet some people are convinced it must be god. And not just god, but the particular god that just happens to be the majority religious belief where they grew up. What a coincidence.

Yes, they have a very good idea about how they could be different.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe they're fine tuning their science to eventually say the universe wasn't created fine tuned?

Of course, all they would have to do is say the universe wasn't created, and that would settle it with them.

But they have to look busy at something, or they'll lose funds.

SETI is an excellent example.

Now lets not join in on the derogatory remarks, my friend.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now lets not join in on the derogatory remarks, my friend.

Oh, awright!

 

[AirPo]

No one can even agree on the science of fine tuning. So far there has been a lack of agreement with scientists on the issue.

That's because there is no science of "fine tuning."

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is not what I said.

Yes it is:

The point is that there is no actual testable data that shows in a lab what actual ancestors gave rise to the whale

btw: i'm still operating under the assumptinon that by "ancestors" you mean general ancestral bloodlines; ancestral species; and not actual individuals, as in a breeding pair - please correct me if that is a wrong assumption.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The quotes are interesting to be sure but they are still just opinion. Maybe somewhere these scientists have actual evidence to support their statements of belief and that is what we need to evaluate. If I quote an atheist scientist who said "I think it most probable that no intelligence designed our universe " and provided no further support you would ask me for evidence not just opinion.
As far as I am aware we simply don't know if the values that permit our kind of universe to exist are likely or not. We only have a sample size of 1 and unless you can provide evidence for the multiverse then our universe is all we have. Thus, so far as we know, the chances of a universe having the specific values we observe is 1 in 1.

Do you think that they hold that opinion due to bias or due to evidence that supports that opinion? The evidence for fine tuning is what they are using to determine the improbability of it all. Here is an analogy I thought was on point:

Imagine you are a high level spy and have been tried and convicted. Your fate is a firing squad of expert marksman. You are placed before a stone wall with 25 guns pointed straight at you. The countdown begins and you hear the word fire. Suddenly you realize you are still alive and not one bullet hit you.

Now this was a close range event, with expert marksmen and you are still alive without one shot hitting you. Was it a lucky break and all missed? Would you not consider that the outcome was planned rather than it being just a lucky coincidence? Or would you think is it really that unlikely? I mean is it really that remarkable, after all you are alive. Is it really that improbable?

The same can be said of the universe. We can look at the fine tuning of the universe that permits life to exist and in spite of its probability now being 1, we can see just how remarkable it really is and how improbable; or we can dismiss the scientists "opinion" on this improbability by claiming it is really not that improbable, we are here after all and that is 1 in 1 odds.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's because there is no science of "fine tuning."

The scientists disagree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes it is:

The point is that there is no actual testable data that shows in a lab what actual ancestors gave rise to the whale

btw: i'm still operating under the assumptinon that by "ancestors" you mean general ancestral bloodlines; ancestral species; and not actual individuals, as in a breeding pair - please correct me if that is a wrong assumption.

Yes. I am not talking actual individuals.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, awright!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have to ask, So?

??????????????

If you don't have the information required to be able to do the probability calculation...then how in the world can you make any assessment regarding the probability of it????

Do you have to know how life began to understand evolution?

No. But you have to understand how life can originate to calculate the probability of it originating.

See? That's how that works..

 

[DogmaHunter]

No one can even agree on the science of fine tuning.

Nobody here disagrees with the idea that if the physical constants would be different, things would be different.

What people disagree with, is all the other apologetic stuff you invent around that idea.

 

[Oncedeceived]

??????????????

If you don't have the information required to be able to do the probability calculation...then how in the world can you make any assessment regarding the probability of it????



No. But you have to understand how life can originate to calculate the probability of it originating.

See? That's how that works..

More fundamentally, the most that follows from a constant-free theory is this: if you want to consider different universes, you will need to consider different laws, not just different constants in the same laws. So, rather than talking about the fine-tuning of the constants, we would consider the fine-tuning of the symmetries and abstract principles. Could it be just a lucky coincidence that they produce in our universe the properties and interactions required by complex structures such as life? This notion “really strains credulity,” according to Frank Wilczek, who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics with David Gross. And as Bernard Carr and Martin Rees wrote in the conclusion of an influential early paper on the fine-tuning problem, “it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life.”

 

[DogmaHunter]

More fundamentally, the most that follows from a constant-free theory is this: if you want to consider different universes, you will need to consider different laws, not just different constants in the same laws.

Here the point of it all: I'm not considering anything in particular, because there is nothing TO consider. Why? Because it is unknown.

So, rather than talking about the fine-tuning of the constants, we would consider the fine-tuning of the symmetries and abstract principles. Could it be just a lucky coincidence that they produce in our universe the properties and interactions required by complex structures such as life?

Yes, that could be the case.
It could also be the case that they couldn't be anything else.
It could also be the case that there's an infinite amount of universe, making this one (as well as any other possible configuration) inevitable.

There's an inumerable amount of possible explanations of this which don't involve any (loaded argument) like "tuning" whatsoever.

But, again as said, we do not know.
See, this is why people are telling you that you are engaging in an argument from ignorance here and using unsupported premises.

This notion “really strains credulity,” according to Frank Wilczek, who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics with David Gross. And as Bernard Carr and Martin Rees wrote in the conclusion of an influential early paper on the fine-tuning problem, “it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life.”

And their opinions are noted, but not in evidence.

PS: that "early paper" doesn't say what you think it says.