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.
What question is that?Then why all the distraction and diversion? Why not just answer the question?
This is the claim that I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with. Maybe if I restate it a different way you will see why. In essence you are saying:Yet, the majority of the scientists coming in on the issue claim what I have that the universe is not a result of chance.
I was really interested by your first analogy but obviously I didn't understand it. Could you spell it out for me, what all the parts represent before giving me a whole new one to be confused about?Perhaps, you didn't intend to but it is the outcome. The analogy is representing how the argument 1 out of 1 is not very convincing when faced with a whole regiment of marksmen firing straight at you and you left standing. Another example would be the royal flush 30 consecutive times would be remarkable and no one would believe that it was just by chance.
Well not quite actually. You need to know that those other possible sets of values were actually viable options. That the values we observe in our universe were in some sense selected from a nber of possible options. We don't k ow this to be the case.We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.
That is not what I am saying. I am not claiming most scientists agree that an Intelligent Being designed the universe, some do and some don't. I am supporting my premise which you yourself constructed PA2: The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely. I believe I've shown that the majority of scientists do not believe that the universe exists with its fine tuning and structure by a chance event. That is the conclusion based on the evidence we have, and what the default position is or is not doesn't change that fact. It think it is apparent that the trouble with the people in the thread, is that they understand the implications of it not being a chance event. People can dig their heels in and claim it is a chance event but when the majority of experts in the field claim they don't believe that, then they do that in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.This is the claim that I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with. Maybe if I restate it a different way you will see why. In essence you are saying:
It is a confirmed matter of public record that the majority of scientists in relevant fields believe that the universe was designed.
When you say it is not by chance then by default it is by intention. As far as we know only concious beings have intentions and so you are claiming that most scientists agree with you that an intelligent being designed the universe. Do you have any evidence of that?
What seems to be your objection when scientific consensus on both are the same?(I will also do some searching to see if I can verify your claim for you but lets work on that one together)
I think it will be more helpful to try to discover what the scientific concensus is on the subject rather than us going back and forth with a couple science voices from each side
When looking at the universe as it exists and the fact that we exist may seem unsurprising if we look at the general question; but if we look at each part of the equation we see the surprising factors in it. IF you were in front of one marksman, if he missed it wouldn't be expected but it wouldn't be that remarkable or improbable but when say 30 marksmen are firing it becomes unlikely and most improbable that they just missed.I was really interested by your first analogy but obviously I didn't understand it. Could you spell it out for me, what all the parts represent before giving me a whole new one to be confused about?
With the evidence that we have now, there is no reason to think that they could not be anything but what they are. It could be of course but the evidence doesn't support that. Have you read the link I gave you about tweaking the constants?Well not quite actually. You need to know that those other possible sets of values were actually viable options. That the values we observe in our universe were in some sense selected from a nber of possible options. We don't k ow this to be the case.
Maybe there is some confusion between us about what the word chance means. In my re-statement of your argument I said that if something does not happen by chance, then it happened on purpose. Do you agree with that?I am supporting my premise which you yourself constructed PA2: The chance that these values could occur by chance is highly unlikely. I believe I've shown that the majority of scientists do not believe that the universe exists with its fine tuning and structure by a chance event
You have not demonstrated that the scientific consensus is that "the universe and it's values are not the product of chance". You have asserted it and given a handful of opinions from a couple scientists (and even those don't entirely agree with you). Or maybe I missed a link or something when you actually did establish this. If so could you repost it for me. ThanksWhat seems to be your objection when scientific consensus on both are the same?
When looking at the universe as it exists and the fact that we exist may seem unsurprising if we look at the general question; but if we look at each part of the equation we see the surprising factors in it. IF you were in front of one marksman, if he missed it wouldn't be expected but it wouldn't be that remarkable or improbable but when say 30 marksmen are firing it becomes unlikely and most improbable that they just missed.
Right I agree. There is no reason to think that the values we observe are necessary, likewise there is no evidence to believe that they are entirely random. So the default remains....we don't know and therfore we can't do any probability calculus.With the evidence that we have now, there is no reason to think that they could not be anything but what they are. It could be of course but the evidence doesn't support that. Have you read the link I gave you about tweaking the constants?
Says a guy posting in AD 2016.Or, we see no evidence of a God.
As are you.
You are telling us you place your trust in men, great.
What is unknown?
That only shows that the universe is exactly the way it is
It only supports fine tuning all the more.
They are tuned. The explanation would have to explain why.
Yet, scientists who know what they know think it is not an argument from ignorance but one of knowledge.
Opinions based on what they know.
Really? How would you know what I think it says?
We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.
Why do we need to know what conditions would be present prior to the universe to determine fine tuning? We find the actual value they do have and we can tweak them in scientific models.
Sounds patriarchal, doesn't it?'In God we trust' was put on coins by men in 1864 and on paper money in 1957, the Bible was also written by men, great.
We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.
Why do we need to know what conditions would be present prior to the universe to determine fine tuning? We find the actual value they do have and we can tweak them in scientific models.
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?