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.
I admitted it because I hadn't read it. It also didn't refute what I was saying.Worse than that, she admitted she hadn't read the paper after i found a link that included a section of the conclusion that explicitly refuted Once's argument. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-49#post-69733677
Also from the link:From your link:
During the past several decades, physics has uncovered basic features of the cosmos that seem, upon first glance, like lucky accidents. Theories now suggest that the most general structural elements of the universe — the stars and planets, and the galaxies that contain them — are the products of finely calibrated laws and conditions that seem too good to be true. What if our most fundamental questions, our late-at-night-wonderings about why we are here, have no more satisfying answer than an exasperated shrug and a meekly muttered ‘Things just seem to have turned out that way’?
That is not slamming fine tuning that is admitting it.
Have you now gone back and read it?I admitted it because I hadn't read it. It also didn't refute what I was saying.
Worse than that, she admitted she hadn't read the paper after i found a link that included a section of the conclusion that explicitly refuted Once's argument. http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-49#post-69733677
So? Your point?Also from the link:
If the origin of the inflaton field is unknown, how can one judge whether its form is somehow ‘unusual’ and ‘fine-tuned’ rather than ‘completely unsurprising’? As we have seen, the phenomena themselves do not wear such a designation on their sleeves. What is merely due to coincidence under one physical theory becomes the typical case under another and, where the physics itself is unclear, judgments about how ‘likely’ or ‘unlikely’ a phenomenon is become unclear as well. This problem gets even worse when you consider certain ‘constants of nature’.
In my feed this shows as your response to my previous comment. Obviously it is missing the context so I can't tell if you are saying " gotcha, I understand your life as we know it objection and concede that it doe's lessen the force of the fine tuning argument" Or if you meant gotcha! Followed by an evil cackle or somethingGottcha.
Just communicating that I knew where you were coming from.In my feed this shows as your response to my previous comment. Obviously it is missing the context so I can't tell if you are saying " gotcha, I understand your life as we know it objection and concede that it doe's lessen the force of the fine tuning argument" Or if you meant gotcha! Followed by an evil cackle or something
?
From that paper, which I had already said I had not read.
I gave you a link of all the scientists that agree with it.
Nope.
From that paper, which I had already said I had not read.
The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation. Many interrelations between different scales that at first sight seem surprising are straightforward consequences of simple physical arguments. But several aspects of our Universe—some of which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life—depend rather delicately on apparent ‘coincidences’ among the physical constants.
I am not the one drawing the conclusions. In fact:
https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/52/89I01/index.xml?section=science
In a naturalistic world, do you?
So? Your point?
So far I am the only one providing support for their claims.
It is very obvious to people unhindered by blind confirmation bias.
This is nonsensical.
And the universe might not exist nor life. Right.
That is the simplistic shadow of the argument.
Yes...so?
What explanatory power does it neglect?
What explanation?
That is simply false. the conclusions are supported and that is the point.
There are few scientists that claim design is not a valid explanation even while they don't agree it is the explanation.
Yes, I've read enough from both authors to know what they would be saying in the article. They may not have fleshed out there views as fully since it was an earlier paper but the main focus would be the same.Yet you are confident that it didn't refute what you were saying?
I am. I've read numerous papers from both authors and I know where they stand on fine tuning.Then you're in no position to question my interpretation of the contents of it, are you?
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?