The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Now that's not quite true, is it? What scientific techniques could one employ to determine that there are no others? The truth is that evidence says there is at least one.

Evidence says there is one, as there is no evidence that provides that there are any others. However, there could possibly be others but there is nothing that points to there being others.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, so you don't believe the universe is fine tuned but those who actually know the universe is 99% plasma still believe it is fine tuned. Why do you suppose they do?

You are confused - those who understand the universe is 99% plasma understand we are a looooooong ways away from understanding the universe - after all, that is why current cosmology requires 96% Fairie Dust in their theories.

That the universe itself operates under laws of physics that are themselves fine tuned - does not mean the same thing as cosmologists actually understanding how it operates. Since they rarely if at all use plasma physics in a universe 99% plasma, it is quite clear they understand very little at all. But again, that's why they require those 96% ad-hoc assumptions because they use the wrong physics for the wrong state of matter.

If you are asking if the universe is a fine tuned physics machine - yes. If you are asking if all we need to do is fine tune a couple theories - then absolutely no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is actually fairly important. Of you are arguing for some undefined creative force and giving it the label "God" then we have a very different set of premeses than if you are arguing that the specific deity Yaweh did it. Which one did you want to go with?

I am always arguing for the Biblical God. That being said, I will be arguing for God as an Intelligent Being. Intelligence being behind everything in existence.

I think you are saying we look at the data and compare the explanatory models. Is that right?

yes.

If you are arguing for a undefined creative force then we would have no reason to expect it to grate a universe of any kind so we can't say that fine tuning is probable or improbable. If you are arguing specifically for Yaweh then you are assuming that what the Bible says about his existence and his intent to create is correct and that has yet to be demonstrated.

Correct.

This is just plain false. Under the multiverse hypothesis or the mega verse hypothesis, the fine tubing we observe has a probability approaching 1.0 and this doesn't even take into account future possible models.

Future models?

 

[Picky Picky]

Evidence says there is one, as there is no evidence that provides that there are any others. However, there could possibly be others but there is nothing that points to there being others.

What is the evidence that there is only one, rather than evidence that there is at least one?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Now that's not quite true, is it? What scientific techniques could one employ to determine that there are no others? The truth is that evidence says there is at least one.

Now that's not quite true is it. Evidence says that there is only one to the best of our knowledge and observations. To postulate more than one would require that there be evidence that more than one might exist. Otherwise it's all just Fairie Dust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is the evidence that there is only one, rather than evidence that there is at least one?

Have you ever observed another one? Detected radiation from another one? Know of any valid experimental evidence that might suggest more than one? Not theory - claims are a dime a dozen and worth less than a penny each.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Future models?

Yes, future, because they know all their present ones don't work. But of course always insist it will all be worked out in some future model that they have no clue as to what it will be, but of course it will support their current models

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is the evidence that there is only one, rather than evidence that there is at least one?

I didn't say that the evidence said only one. I said the evidence is for one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I didn't say that the evidence said only one. I said the evidence is for one.

Can it even be said that the evidence might even imply more than one?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, future, because they know all their present ones don't work. But of course always insist it will all be worked out in some future model that they have no clue as to what it will be, but of course it will support their current models

We don't know everything that is for certain, but we do know quite a bit. And with what we know, we wouldn't be here if it were not for the precise structure of the parameters of the universe. Which I feel is one of the best evidences there is for the God of the Bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can it even be said that the evidence might even imply more than one?

Nope.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We don't know everything that is for certain, but we do know quite a bit. And with what we know, we wouldn't be here if it were not for the precise structure of the parameters of the universe. Which I feel is one of the best evidences there is for the God of the Bible.

Agreed, there is nothing random at all in how the universe operates. Since God is energy and everything comes from energy, contains energy and returns to energy, it's rather self-evident. God is Mind, Knowledge, Wisdom, and without that energy coursing through our brains and the entire universe - there would be no thought. It's knowledge that is the image we were created in. But one must first understand the things that are made to understand the invisible aspects of God. Romans 1:20

 

[Athée]

I am always arguing for the Biblical God. That being said, I will be arguing for God as an Intelligent Being. Intelligence being behind everything in existence.

So moving forward we are talking about an unknown intelligent something that created the uinverse? Meaning the only two properties we know beyond that it exists in some sense, are that this thing is intelligent (how do we define this?) and can create universes?

Correct

Are you granting my objection to premise 1?

Future models?

I though you might go there. ..
Frst though let me point out that my objection to premise 2 did not require future models to be successful because on the multi and mega verse hypotheses the fine tuning we observe has a probability approaching 1.0
Now back to future models. Let's go back to a time before we knew how rainbows are formed. Maybe two people were debating how they are formed. They observe the data and present two hypotheses. One is that leprechauns paint the rainbows and the other is that God makes them. Just because the leprechaun theory is incorrect does not mean that the god hypothesis is any more correct. As it turns out there was another, yet to be discovered, theory that involved light refracting in water that made better sense of the observations.

 

[Athée]

Agreed, there is nothing random at all in how the universe operates. Since God is energy and everything comes from energy, contains energy and returns to energy, it's rather self-evident. God is Mind, Knowledge, Wisdom, and without that energy coursing through our brains and the entire universe - there would be no thought. It's knowledge that is the image we were created in. But one must first understand the things that are made to understand the invisible aspects of God. Romans 1:20

Thanks for chiming in
That said it seems like your post is full of unjustified assertions that even were they the case are off topic. Or maybe I missed your list completely (i have been known to do this ) how does what you are saying relate to the debate we are having?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Agreed, there is nothing random at all in how the universe operates. Since God is energy and everything comes from energy, contains energy and returns to energy, it's rather self-evident. God is Mind, Knowledge, Wisdom, and without that energy coursing through our brains and the entire universe - there would be no thought. It's knowledge that is the image we were created in. But one must first understand the things that are made to understand the invisible aspects of God. Romans 1:20

I believe that when God said the heavens declare His glory, He meant it. I believe that we get the ability to understand the universe because we think His thought after Him.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thanks for chiming in
That said it seems like your post is full of unjustified assertions that even were they the case are off topic. Or maybe I missed your list completely (i have been known to do this ) how does what you are saying relate to the debate we are having?

Are you denying that energy is what made everything, is in everything and that everything returns to energy? Are you denying that only energy can neither be created nor destroyed - so must always have existed? Are you denying that your brain does not work without energy - after all, your heart can stop beating, but you are not dead until all electrical activity in your brain stops. Is there something I said that you specifically object to as unscientific?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe that when God said the heavens declare His glory, He meant it. I believe that we get the ability to understand the universe because we think His thought after Him.

He is thought, this is why we have a memorial tomb, in our hopes that God will remember us. Only energy can neither be created or destroyed - but has always just existed. It is energy that makes our thoughts possible. It is energy from which all things are, is in all things, and to which all things will return. Since we are mind as well, it is only natural that we could eventually comprehend what Mind made.

 

[AirPo]

Until there is a reason to show they can't be changed we have no reason to assume they can't be.

You have no reason to assume they can be. Hence, it's an unsupported assertion. A logical fallacy. That's why fine tuning fails right out of the gate.

 

[Picky Picky]

Can it even be said that the evidence might even imply more than one?

I know of no evidence that implies more than one. What is quite certain is that the evidence is that there is at least one. If you wish to restrict that merely to "one" you need to show evidence that excludes, for example, "two".

 

[Athée]

Are you denying that energy is what made everything, is in everything and that everything returns to energy? Are you denying that only energy can neither be created nor destroyed - so must always have existed? Are you denying that your brain does not work without energy - after all, your heart can stop beating, but you are not dead until all electrical activity in your brain stops. Is there something I said that you specifically object to as unscientific?

I copied your earlier post:

Agreed, there is nothing random at all in how the universe operates. (assertion) Since God is energy (assertion) and everything comes from energy, contains energy and returns to energy, it's rather self-evident. God is Mind, Knowledge, Wisdom (assertion) and without that energy coursing through our brains and the entire universe - there would be no thought (assertion) It's knowledge that is the image we were created in (assertion... that is actually untrue even in your worldview as Adam and Eve were created in God's image before they ate the fruit giving knowledge of good and evil). But one must first understand the things that are made to understand the invisible aspects of God (assertion )

I also still don't see the connection to any of the premeses we are debating.