-
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.
The fine tuning of the universe.
- Thread starter Oncedeceived
- Start date
I might just do that if I find the time. It isn't necessary as I've read many more current papers from both authors of the paper
Upvote
0
Yes. All sorts of irrelevant accusations you didn't feel the need to substantiate.
No surprise, really. No one has any idea how likely or not our current set of constants is so there's likely nothing to find. I guess we can ignore any arguments based on the premise that they are unlikely.
Upvote
0
In this case, I think it means you can't actually back up your claim.
I've posted questions about 3 or 4 of your references. So far no substantive answers to any of them. Lots of eye rolling, though, so at least you're reading those.
Upvote
0
I guess you can retreat to nitpicking like that if it makes you feel better. If I admit that I was wrong, will you go back and explain how the Planck paper had anything to do with the probability we see the constants we see? Or how the 1979 paper doesn't actually describe perfectly good natural explanations for many of the "fine tuned" values we see? Or how theism is an explanation for anything?
Or is this kind of thing just a way to dodge answering difficult questions?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've made accusations? This is priceless.
Well you are free to ignore scientists who claim that then.
Upvote
0
1. I wasn't nitpicking you claimed it was the paper and it wasn't. You've admitted it and so its done. No problem
2. Planck paper was in regard to something another poster didn't understand about something and I felt it would help to understand better.
3. The 1979 paper didn't explain anything and you have not provided what you "think" explains it. If it was a perfectly good natural explanation there would be no discussion within the scientific arena about finding a perfectly good natural explanation now would there?
4. Theism explains most everything very well. But of course we haven't got that far to make the case.
There is something on the bottom of this post, I don't know if it was added after I responded or what but I am not ignoring any questions.
Upvote
0
No that is not true there are many people that agree with me. You and the atheists on here do not agree with me but that doesn't mean no one does.
Upvote
0
Yep :
Who are they, exactly, and what are the odds they've calculated? Let's see a list of the probabilities they all agree on.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Interested readers can see that the above claim is a fabrication. The paper was in fact posted in a response to one of mine which had questions about probability estimates for how likely it was that the constants we see came about. See http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe.7948420/page-38#post-69719387.
So now that we've established what actually happened, any chance you want to explain how the paper is in any way related to probability calculations for the odds of our universe being like it is? Or are you willing to admit it has nothing to do with this thread? Either is fine by me. But please, can you stick to what was actually posted in the thread?
Didn't explain anything at all? Bold claim. Just one question - have you actually read it yet?
Upvote
0
Oh my.
I've shown Luke Barnes and his calculations. You can get Lee Smolin's book and his are in the back of the book. I don't have the book and haven't ever found it online. But regardless, having so many necessary precise values seems to convince the scientists that this is highly unlikely to have happened by accident.
Upvote
0
↑
KCfromNC: I was specifically asking her actually show how Bayes' Theorem applied to her claim in post 658. If it isn't clear what I'm asking it is because that post has a pretty peculiar claim in it, so without that context it looks like I'm making up something strange and unrelated to the actual math. But I'm just asking for clarification of a weird statement.
Athee: Oh shoot I forgot about the baysean probability bit. This method relies on prior probabilities to determine the consequent probabilities. The problem here is that we only have our universe to populate that prior. If you want to speculate about hypothetical alternate universes , you are going to get speculative and hypothetical results.
Me: We know what would happen if the constants were tweaked, which is what we need to know to get to the probability.
This might help:
http://planck.caltech.edu/pub/2013results/Planck_2013_results_16.pdf
This was showing how constants can be tweaked which is what needs to be known before getting to probability. Now we can see what I meant with the link.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
