The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

The issue is; the poster in question, has a very powerful psychological need, to support their personal faith belief.

Ok, I am warning you and anyone else that decides that they wish to make this a bash Once thread that I am perfectly willing to report anyone that does it. I'm just not going to tolerate your constant psycho-babble. Either keep it to my arguments and keep personal appraisals to yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, I am warning you and anyone else that decides that they wish to make this a bash Once thread that I am perfectly willing to report anyone that does it. I'm just not going to tolerate your constant psycho-babble. Either keep it to my arguments and keep personal appraisals to yourself.

Join the crowd, sis.

We're on the winning side, amen?

Just think what Jesus had to put up with.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Join the crowd, sis.

We're on the winning side, amen?

Just think what Jesus had to put up with.

And still does.

 

[AV1611VET]

And still does.

Wow! Good point!

 

[bhsmte]

Only the blind fail to see everything, which is proof of God.

I know, I know, anyone who doesn't agree with your personal faith, is blind.

 

[Davian]

If God didn't exist, there would be no atheists.

If you don't need actual gods for there to be believers, you don't need them for there to be those that are unconvinced of the beleivers' claims.

 

[Davian]

What I am saying is that the marbles are the universes and there are all black marbles in trillions and trillions of marbles and the white one is ours. The container in this doesn't matter.

It is relevant, but it is also the fact that it is one such universe according to Davies in trillions and trillions.

The reality is that we have one white marble, and we can only speculate that there are other marbles, or that the marble we have could have been different. You can't even look into the [hypothetical] container, or know that there is a "container".

 

[Robert Palase]

If God didn't exist, there would be no atheists.

Yes and if the Loch Ness Monster didn't exist there would not be people who think it doesn't, what else can we think of that must exist so there can be people who do not believe they exist? other Gods? Unicorns? Dragons? Pixies? the list never ends...........

How many Christians are atheists regarding Islam or any of the other religions?
Everyone knows what it's like to be an atheist because we are all atheists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We do know how the parameters are assigned their values, they are measured.

We measure their value. We can't "measure" how those values were obtained. We don't know how they are obtained.

We don't need to know how the universe originated as all laws of physics, matter, energy, space and time did not exist, so we don't need to know prior to them about them.

We need to understand the process of how a universe comes into being, to understand how the laws and constants are set / obtained, as that is something that happens during the origination of the universe.

Once the universe exists, the values and laws are set and all we can do at that point is observe / measure them. This, however, tells us nothing about how they came to be.

Get it now?

WE know the measurements and we can change those measurements and produce mathematical correct hypothetical universes with those changes.

What we can do is take the equations that reflect our current understanding of the universe, and inject other values in the constants, as some kind of hypothetical thought experiment.

However, that again tells us NOTHING about how the values are obtained. Nore does it tell us if they even CAN be different in reality. We simply don't know that.

I don't think so. How do you think so?

Because it dismantles your premise that the values are "unlikely".

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. I wasn't providing that to support ID. I was providing it for the PA2 premise in Athee's structure of my argument.

Funny, as that is exactly what it does NOT support.
The article CLEARLY states that it is unknown.

If it is "unknown", how in the world can you conclude it to be "unlikely"?

Your link does not support your premise, it does the opposite.
It shows that your premise is not justified, not in evidence, unsupported, just an assertion.

Almost all scientists agree they could be different

The link you posted LITERALLY says otherwise.
Do I need to repeat the quotes??

Here:

These constants represent the edge of our knowledge

An innovative, elegant physical theory that actually predicts the values of these constants would be among the greatest achievements of twenty-first-century physics. Many have tried and failed

, there is no reason to believe that they couldn't.

There is also no reason to believe that they can.
The point exactly. It is unknown.

You can, and should, ask the question "why these values and not some other values?".
But the answer to that question is currently not known.

Therefor, you can't make any assessment about the probability thereof.
It could be 1 in a gazitrillion and it could be 1 in 1.

IF you will notice they say if they find they Couldn't BE Different meaning they right now can not show or have a reason why they couldn't have been.

Or why they could. It is unknown.
So no assessment can be made concerning the probability of them being what they are. So the premise in your "argument" is not justified.

Right now there is nothing that informs us they have to be what they are.

And there is also nothing to inform us of the opposite.
Because it is unknown.

So tell me why you don't agree with the computer models.

I never said I don't agree with computer models.
It's not about computer models in general. It's about what they represent and what the justification is for the data you feed into it and, by extension, how reflective of reality they are.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course they can't have different values in actual reality or our actual reality is lost.

Good job on missing the point. Again.

You do realize that much of our scientific knowledge arises from knowing exactly what those values are?

Knowing WHAT the values are, is completely different from knowing HOW the values came to be what they are.

See this is why I know that you don't understand fine tuning, when you don't even understand what they are and that they have a actual real measurement/value.

What the values are is not under the discussion.
What is under discussion is how the values came to be what they are. And you insisting that it is somehow "improbable" for these values to be what they are.

You can't make an assessment of that probability, if you don't know by which process these values are obtained - or if the can even be different in the first place.

For all we know, it's something like Pi. That's a constant as well. And the value thereof would be the same everywhere, always. A circle is a circle and a radius is a radius and it is what it is.

But that's the thing (again), isn't it? We don't know.
But you like to pretend that you know.

We know what the values are and have for a long time. They are the fundamental knowns from which we work.

But we don't know how they are obtained and / or if the even can be different.
Which makes your premise, and by extension your entire argument, unsupported.

So unless God presents Himself and gives a complete report to you, you will continue to think what you will.

No, that's not at all what I said.
What I said is that if you wish to make such a claim, you're going to have to support it with evidence. You need to actually demonstrate the causal chain of events.
Otherwise, your claim can't be differentiated from fiction.

You do agree that claims need to be supported by evidence, right?

Having said that, I can only repeat my point...
If it idd turns out that the values CAN be different and if the possible range thereof is really big, then yes, the values of our universe would be "improbable". But guess what..... at that point any specific configuration of the values would be equally improbable.

Some configuration will end up being the one. ANY outcome would thus be an "improbable universe".

How do you propose to got from that to "so god-did-it", without additional evidence to support this asserted chain of events??

As an analogy... consider dealing yourself a poker hand.
Getting a royal flush has exactly the same probability as any other specific hand.

OK. Sticking heads in the sand works for some.

Says the person that insists on a probability claim concerning a phenomena of which all aspects are literally unkown... in fact, it's so unkown that actually, there might not be a phenomena at all (if it turns out that these constant are actual constants that simply can NOT be anything other then what they are...)

Hey, when you won't even consider expert scientists on the question of fine tuning I have no aspirations of you getting past your own confirmation biases.

I have no problems with expert scientists. As shown in the very link you yourself posted, the "expert scientists" fully agree with me that the how and why of these constants, are completely unkown.

 

[Robert Palase]

It's not about computer models in general. It's about what they represent and what the justification is for the data you feed into it.

A million dollars says Once will disregard everything you've written and come back with a question.

Believers were not reasoned into believing so they can not be reasoned out of believing, for them it's either true or false black or white, as you are unable to prove them wrong they conclude that what they believe must therefor be true.
Unicorns and dragons must exist because you can't prove that they don't exist.
It's the kind of logic that was used against early American settlers who could not think their way of a paper bag.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A million dollars says Once will disregard everything you've written and come back with a question.

I did my best to repeat that the "how/why" of the values is unkown every other sentence or so. I even bolded it, for extra emphasis.

But yes, I don't expect different results this time around.

Believers were not reasoned into believing so they can not be reasoned out of believing

Great wisdom from Dr Gregory House!

 

[AV1611VET]

Everyone knows what it's like to be an atheist because we are all atheists.

I'm sure atheists would disagree.

 

[Robert Palase]

Great wisdom from Dr Gregory House!

I knew someone had said it but I couldn't be bothered to find out who.
There's not much we say that someone hasn't already said many many times

 

[Robert Palase]

I'm sure atheists would disagree.

As an atheist are you speaking for yourself? [or do you believe in all the theistic claims out there?]

 

[AV1611VET]

As an atheist are you speaking for yourself? [or do you believe in all the theistic claims out there?]

Methinks this is the kind of rhetoric we get when unbelievers homeschool themselves.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Methinks this is the kind of rhetoric we get when unbelievers homeschool themselves.

What he, obviously, means, is that you know perfectly well what it is like not to buy into a religion, because you are not a muslim or a hindu.

You are an atheist with respect to 99.99% of claimed gods out there.

We just go one god further then you.

 

[Robert Palase]

Methinks this is the kind of rhetoric we get when unbelievers homeschool themselves.

If it wasn't so sad that might even be funny, home schooled meaning people who don't want their children to learn the truth until they have fully indoctrinated them into believing something other than the truth.

If religions were true children would not need to be indoctrinated into believing them, why can't religious people reason this out for themselves? has something been removed from them or is something missing?

All religions suffer from the Santa syndrome, if you stop reinforcing a belief then children will eventually stop believing it.

 

[AV1611VET]

home schooled meaning people who don't want their children

No.

I said, "homeschool themselves."

Let's not bring children into the conversation.

For the most part, it's not hard to tell that some atheists are self-taught in their own philosophy.

1. Don't know even basic doctrine.
2. Will call themselves "agnostics" for whatever reason.
3. Will cherry-pick their science.
4. Willing to argue against something they know nothing about.
5. Good at converting good points into catch-22 requirements.

Like arguing against scientists, you'll NEVER see a light bulb come on in their heads, and they'll try their best to argue a point to its logical ... (not theological) ... conclusion which, of course, is one or more:

1. Antibiblical
2. Nonbiblical
3. Antisemitic
4. Antizionist
5. Antimoral
6. Antiestablishment
7. Countercultural