The fine tuning of the universe.

[Subduction Zone]

So your answer to the fine tuning argument is that there is no argument because you deny fine tuning is real. There is agreement of the majority of scientists in the field that fine tuning is real. Are you arguing they are incorrect?

That is not what I said or implied. It seems that you are trying not to understand. And how do the majority of scientist in the field agree that it is real? I have not seen any evidence of that. The term "fine tuned" is rather prejudicial and until your side demonstrates any evidence for it in the sense that you want to use it, I can only conclude that any so called fine tuning that implies a god has not been demonstrated yet.

The problem with this type of thinking is that you dismiss any argument by claiming that creationists do a certain thing. I think you would agree that not all atheists think the same and to claim they do would have you dismissing the person's argument making that claim...would you not?

That is true, not all creationists think the same. But here we are discussing creationists that make the same mistake of using an argument from ignorance. Try to keep on topic.

The fine tuning argument is about what we do know and not what we don't know. Your assumption is that there is just something we don't know that will explain the fine tuning. Now you see the problem with your argument. On one hand you claim fine tuning is not real and on the other you are claiming that fine tuning will someday be explained. It is contradictory and begging the question.

Wrong again. I know that we don't even know if the universe is 'fine tuned' or not. I am not making any assumptions. Historically so called fine tuning has been shown not to be 'fine tuning'.

You are also equating Kepler/s law with the fine tuning and they are not the same. Kepler's law was never considered a fine tuned constant.

Please try to pay attention. I already explained this to you once. That is simply because it predated this bogus argument. We understand now why those numbers are what we observe. If we did not have that explanation it would be part of the so called fine tuned parameters in that argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't talk down to me SZ. You are the one lacking understanding and the question is valid if you wish to claim it is the same as the universe's fine tuning. Are you going to answer?

Please, when you don't understand a simple argument don't complain when people make your lack of understanding even more obvious. And I did answer. If you did not understand then you should have said so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe wasn't any way to start with. To start with, it didn't exist.

Now you are getting into a possible philosophical argument that physicists do not seem to agree on. It is best to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. Whether there was a before the Big Bang or not is still being debated. Some think that time itself began at the singularity so that a statement such as "before the Big Bang" may be as nonsensical as saying North of the north pole.

 

[lesliedellow]

If the universe didn't exist, then it did exist, that would be the start.

Well yes, at the start it had the value it needed to have, within very tight limits, for the universe to contain more than hydrogen and helium. That is what is meant by fine tuning.

If gravity could have been different by say 10%, and the universe still to be something other than completely inert, without so much as a star to shine, let alone chemistry to become a reality, that would have struck nobody as anything very remarkable. But, as it happens, it couldn't have been different by 10%, or even 1%, but only 0.0000000000001%.

 

[AirPo]

Well yes, at the start it had the value it needed to have, within very tight limits, for the universe to contain more than hydrogen and helium. That is what is meant by fine tuning.

If gravity could have been different by say 10%, and the universe still to be something other than completely inert, without so much as a star to shine, let alone chemistry to become a reality, that would have struck nobody as anything very remarkable. But, as it happens, it couldn't have been different by 10%, or even 1%, but only 0.0000000000001%.

Well then it sounds like fine tuning is nothing more than creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well yes, at the start it had the value it needed to have, within very tight limits, for the universe to contain more than hydrogen and helium. That is what is meant by fine tuning.

If gravity could have been different by say 10%, and the universe still to be something other than completely inert, without so much as a star to shine, let alone chemistry to become a reality, that would have struck nobody as anything very remarkable. But, as it happens, it couldn't have been different by 10%, or even 1%, but only 0.0000000000001%.

And this is the correct use of 'fine tuning'. Certain parameters that make our universe able to exist are very very touchy. The question why those values are those values.

ETA: Sorry, I had to come back and finish this post. I have a new laptop and it seems to be hyper-sensitive.

 

[lesliedellow]

Now you are getting into a possible philosophical argument that physicists do not seem to agree on. It is best to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. Whether there was a before the Big Bang or not is still being debated. Some think that time itself began at the singularity so that a statement such as "before the Big Bang" may be as nonsensical as saying North of the north pole.

It doesn't seem very philosophical to say that time, as in spacetime, didn't exist prior to the universe. But physicists can only do physics on an already extant universe. They cannot, as physicists, say anything about what may or may not have existed prior to time t=0. As private individuals, of course, they can indulge in whatever speculations they want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It doesn't seem very philosophical to say that time, as in spacetime, didn't exist prior to the universe. But physicists can only do physics on an already extant universe. They cannot, as physicists, say anything about what may or may not have existed prior to time t=0. As private individuals, of course, they can indulge in whatever speculations they want.

Some physicists seem to believe that there could not have been anything before the Big Bang. That time is just a feature of our universe. Others seem to think that time is a bigger thing than that. I am nowhere near that level so I will not debate it. I am just observing the difference of opinions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That doesn't imply the elements had to be fine tuned. There is no reason to assume that they could not have been that way from the start.

The point is that many had to be there right from the start for the universe itself to exist. That is one of the points.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No it's not.

Yes, it most certainly is. Beyond a doubt. Here are a few examples which if different the universe wouldn't exist:

Stephen Hawking states, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”

In the formation of the universe, the balance between matter and antimatter, and the excess of matter over antimatter, needed to be accurate to one part in ten billion for the universe to arise.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not what I said or implied. It seems that you are trying not to understand. And how do the majority of scientist in the field agree that it is real? I have not seen any evidence of that. The term "fine tuned" is rather prejudicial and until your side demonstrates any evidence for it in the sense that you want to use it, I can only conclude that any so called fine tuning that implies a god has not been demonstrated yet.

I am surprised that you are unaware of one of the biggest questions in this field, which then gives light to your lack of understanding of what fine tuning is, what the argument is and your determination to claim it is me that lacks knowledge on the subject when you seem to be totally uninformed to it.

That is true, not all creationists think the same. But here we are discussing creationists that make the same mistake of using an argument from ignorance. Try to keep on topic.

Do I need to remind you that you were the one that took this tactic?

Wrong again. I know that we don't even know if the universe is 'fine tuned' or not. I am not making any assumptions. Historically so called fine tuning has been shown not to be 'fine tuning'.

Unfortunately, you are also unaware that the label "fine tuned" does not come from my side of the fence. There is no Historically, this information became apparent like I said back in 1913 and only a small example at that. It wasn't until we had the tools to measure the parameters that it was found to be the case.

Please try to pay attention.

Stop talking down to me. You are being rude and I've been nothing but civil in our conversations.

I already explained this to you once. That is simply because it predated this bogus argument. We understand now why those numbers are what we observe. If we did not have that explanation it would be part of the so called fine tuned parameters in that argument.

That is simply false.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well then it sounds like fine tuning is nothing more than creation.

Well that just shows that what something sounds like is misleading.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that many had to be there right from the start for the universe itself to exist. That is one of the points.

And the problem is that not enough is known about the beginning of the universe as we know it to really say very much about those parameters yet. That is one of the reasons that this is an argument from ignorance. So far as we have learned more and more why certain values have the values that they have has been explained. There is nothing in the fine tuning argument that supports the existence of a creator.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the problem is that not enough is known about the beginning of the universe as we know it to really say very much about those parameters yet. That is one of the reasons that this is an argument from ignorance. So far as we have learned more and more why certain values have the values that they have has been explained. There is nothing in the fine tuning argument that supports the existence of a creator.

Nope. You are wrong. We know a lot about it, it is through that knowledge that we know these parameters are necessary for the universe and life as we know it to exist at all.

 

[AirPo]

Nope. You are wrong. We know a lot about it, it is through that knowledge that we know these parameters are necessary for the universe and life as we know it to exist at all.

Nobody is saying that the parameters are not necessary. But the claim that they were "fined tuned" is just an unsupported assertion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am surprised that you are unaware of one of the biggest questions in this field, which then gives light to your lack of understanding of what fine tuning is, what the argument is and your determination to claim it is me that lacks knowledge on the subject when you seem to be totally uninformed to it.

Exactly what do you think that I am unaware of? Your inability to understand posts does not mean that person does not understand something.

Do I need to remind you that you were the one that took this tactic?

Please, no false accusations.

Unfortunately, you are also unaware that the label "fine tuned" does not come from my side of the fence. There is no Historically, this information became apparent like I said back in 1913 and only a small example at that. It wasn't until we had the tools to measure the parameters that it was found to be the case.

Now you are simply demonstrating a lack of understanding of the history of physics. This particular argument began around then.

Stop talking down to me. You are being rude and I've been nothing but civil in our conversations.

This is not true. You were extremely rude at the beginning of our conversations. Perhaps if you admitted that you did not understand a point instead of making poor replies I would not need to "talk down". I offered to let bygones be bygones but you did not take me up on my offer.

That is simply false.

Explain why.

 

[lesliedellow]

There is nothing in the fine tuning argument that supports the existence of a creator.

That is a matter of opinion, and, unsurprisingly, it is not an opinion shared by religious physicists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You are wrong. We know a lot about it, it is through that knowledge that we know these parameters are necessary for the universe and life as we know it to exist at all.

For me to be wrong you need to show how these parameters indicate the presence of a god. I am not arguing about life as we know it. You are not paying attention, read AirPo's correction because I do not care to be accused of "talking down" again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a matter of opinion, and, unsurprisingly, it is not an opinion shared by religious physicists.

But that only shows that it is a matter of opinion. Those few physicists that believe that have not been able to justify their beliefs. In other words they can't show how these so called fine tuned parameters were necessary for a god. We do not even know if all of these parameters are variable or if they are at a fixed level because of deeper physical laws. I am not a physicist, but I do believe that essential saltes can name some of these early "parameters" that have been solved. They are not possibly variable as first thought.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nobody is saying that the parameters are not necessary. But the claim that they were "fined tuned" is just an unsupported assertion.

Lets see what you are having difficulty with here. What do you think "fine tuned" means and where do you think the concept arose?