The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

I guess in have to grant that for the sake of the discussion don't I. I could insist that you demonstrate that yaweh exists before allowing you to include him in a premise but we both know that you will not be able to do this. Morover the way you wrote this it seems you want me to grant you the bible as well (yaweh claims that....I assume from the Bible and I assume you want me to accept that the Bible is reliable when it claims that) which I absolutely do not.

I believe I stated in the beginning that this thread was not to prove God exists or prove the identity of the Intelligent Designer. I don't mind if you don't accept the Bible as reliable, in fact, you don't have to "believe" it at all. I might use it to determine certain points of reference to the design argument I will be using but obviously I am a Christian and that will be my view.

I also have to ask what about the universe clearly demonstrates that the god who made it all was Yaweh. Why not Allah, Zeus, Ra or any of the thousands of other proposed gods. What specific feature makes it clear that it was yaweh and not any of the others?

Our main focus here should be the hypothesis on each side and which better explains the fine tuning. But you of course had Yahweh in the premises.

You said the universe should appear designed and that we should be able to recognize the design. I assume here you mean that the uinverse has values that allow it to exist when it needn't have?

Many scientists claim the universe appears designed; granted they don't claim it is nor that they think it is but they recognize features in the universe that appear to be designed.

Our reasoning should be that there are differing hypotheses that are put forth to explain the fine tuning of the universe. H1, H2 ...O is the observation which is counted as evidence in favor of H1 or H2 and which is more probable under that hypothesis. For instance if you want to claim that the fine tuning is more probable with an atheistic single-universe or atheistic multi-verse or mega verse which you choose as most probable would be H2. H1 would be the universe is more probable with theism.

An example: You are walking along the beach and you come to some pebbles and those pebbles are piled in groups that spell out Welcome Athee. Now the pebbles could have naturally been arranged by the ocean and principles of ocean currents or they might have been arranged by your wife who walked there previously. Which is more probable? It seems that it is highly improbable that they would be arranged in this way by chance and the second hypothesis which would be your wife arranging them that way would be much more probable. So the observation is better explained by one hypothesis over the other.

So:

Premise 1. The existence of the fine-tuning is not improbable under theism.

Premise 2. The existence of the fine-tuning is very improbable under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis or which ever you choose.

Conclusion: From premises (1) and (2) and the prime principle of confirmation, it follows that the fine-tuning data provides strong evidence to favor of the design hypothesis over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.

How does this look to you?

 

[[serious]]

I haven't read it.

It's always risky linking to something you haven't read. This one actually explicitly mentions a point I made earlier

I was aware of it due to Rees and Carr. From what I have read of both I thought I had a good grasp of what their positions were. What are you referring to and I can read it or I will be glad to have you provide your concern from the paper.

The three issues they take with the anthropic explanation are as follows:
1. It's a post hoc explanation that has not predicted any future occurrence
2. It assumes life as we know it. It assumes life requires heavy elements, galaxies, certain types of stars, etc. The author says, "It is concievable that some form of intelligence may exist without all these features" (my point from earlier.)
3. It only is precise to order of magnitude, not to a specific value. (Which kind of makes it more of "rough tuning" than fine tuning if you ask me.)

There's a partial preview here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ciple_and_the_Structure_of_the_Physical_World

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's always risky linking to something you haven't read. This one actually explicitly mentions a point I made earlier
The three issues they take with the anthropic explanation are as follows:
1. It's a post hoc explanation that has not predicted any future occurrence
2. It assumes life as we know it. It assumes life requires heavy elements, galaxies, certain types of stars, etc. The author says, "It is concievable that some form of intelligence may exist without all these features" (my point from earlier.)
3. It only is precise to order of magnitude, not to a specific value. (Which kind of makes it more of "rough tuning" than fine tuning if you ask me.)

There's a partial preview here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ciple_and_the_Structure_of_the_Physical_World

Oh ok. That doesn't surprise me. This is an older article that was written prior to updated information.
1. What is a post hoc explanation?
2. It doesn't assume only life as we know it but intelligent life. We have the ability now to determine with computer models that are far superior to anything then what happens when some of these constants are tweaked and how it makes any kind of life impossible.
3. Again, due to the superior technology the values are very accurate and if they were not the work physicists do would be impossible.

 

[[serious]]

Oh ok. That doesn't surprise me. This is an older article that was written prior to updated information.
1. What is a post hoc explanation?
2. It doesn't assume only life as we know it but intelligent life. We have the ability now to determine with computer models that are far superior to anything then what happens when some of these constants are tweaked and how it makes any kind of life impossible.
3. Again, due to the superior technology the values are very accurate and if they were not the work physicists do would be impossible.

That is not what the paper says. The paper says the values are only predicted to an order of magnitude and intelligent life existing without heavy elements cant be ruled out.

If you'd like to try again, post another paper that you feel better supports your point. You might want to read it before posting this time though.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not what the paper says. The paper says the values are only predicted to an order of magnitude and intelligent life existing without heavy elements cant be ruled out.

If you'd like to try again, post another paper that you feel better supports your point. You might want to read it before posting this time though.

Athee has not researched this topic much and I wanted him to have a reference more in line with his point of view than mine. I had given him a good one that is updated and has a multitude of current information and I wanted to show something from early on.

 

[Robert Palase]

I am not sure what you are asking?

How does fine tuning point to your God? how do you get from fine tuning to your God did it? what has fine tuning got to do with your God?

Although I think I have covered all the angles I'm sure you will find a way to not answer and ask a question.

 

[[serious]]

Athee has not researched this topic much and I wanted him to have a reference more in line with his point of view than mine. I had given him a good one that is updated and has a multitude of current information and I wanted to show something from early on.

That isn't what Athee asked for though. You said you knew of about 200 scientific papers supporting fine tuning. Athee asked you to cite one of them that was representitive of the group. You posted one that undercuts some of your own arguments.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That isn't what Athee asked for though. You said you knew of about 200 scientific papers supporting fine tuning. Athee asked you to cite one of them that was representitive of the group. You posted one that undercuts some of your own arguments.

Like I said, I had given him a very updated and current one that shows they were unwarranted in their conclusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does fine tuning point to your God? how do you get from fine tuning to your God did it? what has fine tuning got to do with your God?

Although I think I have covered all the angles I'm sure you will find a way to not answer and ask a question.

If you are asking how I come personally to that conclusion, it quite simple. The God of the Bible exists, He says HE created the universe and everything in it. He is the law giver of the laws of the universe. The appearance of design is confirmation of a designed universe.

If you are talking about how I relate that to others, then we have to show the explanation under theism is more probable than an atheistic one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a topic that another member, Athee, and I have determined would be a good one to explore in our opposing views.

Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and best-selling author has said of fine tuning:
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

There is agreement between the majority of physicists, cosmologists and astrobiologists in regards to the fine tuning of the universe. The question is not whether or not fine tuning is real, it is, but why? Why is our universe the way it is and could it have been different? What best explains the universe and its very narrow parameters that allow for intelligent life to exist?

These are the questions and more that we will be addressing in this thread.

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

Get ready, get set, and go......

Actually the problem is that they require all that Fairie Dust because for some reason they are using the physics for solids, liquids and gasses (1%) in an attempt to describe a universe 99% plasma. And although they can not provide one single laboratory experiment with the plasma state of matter where the same physics was used to describe its behavior - they conveniently forget this and insist they can use the physics for the other three states. No plasma physicist in any plasma laboratory does so, but hey, fantasy theory trumps actual experimentation anytime I guess. Much easier when pesky laboratory experimentation doesn't get in the way of your theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I guess in have to grant that for the sake of the discussion don't I. I could insist that you demonstrate that yaweh exists before allowing you to include him in a premise but we both know that you will not be able to do this. Morover the way you wrote this it seems you want me to grant you the bible as well (yaweh claims that....I assume from the Bible and I assume you want me to accept that the Bible is reliable when it claims that) which I absolutely do not.

I also have to ask what about the universe clearly demonstrates that the god who made it all was Yaweh. Why not Allah, Zeus, Ra or any of the thousands of other proposed gods. What specific feature makes it clear that it was yaweh and not any of the others?

You said the universe should appear designed and that we should be able to recognize the design. I assume here you mean that the uinverse has values that allow it to exist when it needn't have?

As long as you don't have to prove that dark matter, dark energy, bending spacetime, neutron stars, etc actually exists in order to theorize its existence, right? God forbid you might actually have to come up with proof, like you seem to want, you'd be out an entire cosmology then and left with but 4% of a theory. A theory you can't get to work even adding 96% Fairie Dust.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually the problem is that they require all that Fairie Dust because for some reason they are using the physics for solids, liquids and gasses (1%) in an attempt to describe a universe 99% plasma. And although they can not provide one single laboratory experiment with the plasma state of matter where the same physics was used to describe its behavior - they conveniently forget this and insist they can use the physics for the other three states. No plasma physicist in any plasma laboratory does so, but hey, fantasy theory trumps actual experimentation anytime I guess. Much easier when pesky laboratory experimentation doesn't get in the way of your theory.

Ok, I don't know how that places fine tuning in the category of Fairie Dust nor do I understand how you believe that relates to the fine tuning?

 

[AirPo]

No, just honestly what I felt.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[AirPo]

There is no reason to believe that they have to be what they are, they could have been different as far as we know.

Seems like you conceed the point that you have to assume the parameters can be changed.

 

[[serious]]

Like I said, I had given him a very updated and current one that shows they were unwarranted in their conclusions.

Ok, where is the link to that one. I checked the last few pages but didn't see any other link from you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Seems like you conceed the point that you have to assume the parameters can be changed.

I am saying that there is no known physical law or restraint that would prohibit them from being something other than what they are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, where is the link to that one. I checked the last few pages but didn't see any other link from you.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf

 

[[serious]]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf

Thanks, I'll take a look.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks, I'll take a look.

You are very welcome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, I don't know how that places fine tuning in the category of Fairie Dust nor do I understand how you believe that relates to the fine tuning?

What "fine tuning"???? 96% of cosmology is Fairie Dust and can't be seen, detected in any laboratory or reproduced in any experiment. If you call ad-hoc theory "fine tuning", which wouldn't even be required if they used plasma physics in a universe 99% plasma, I'm not sure there is any hope for the future of cosmology.