Ok, fair enough. You need some evidence that is sufficient enough to convince you that there is a God. But if you deny any and all evidence from the get go how would you ever feel there is even any evidence?
Upvote
0
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.
Ok, fair enough. You need some evidence that is sufficient enough to convince you that there is a God. But if you deny any and all evidence from the get go how would you ever feel there is even any evidence?I start with the assumption that there is no God because there is nothing in this world to suggest that there is a God.
I do not believe things just because they make me feel good, I may like things because they make me feel good and I eat things because they make me feel good but to believe something life changing it would need to be accompanied by an awful lot of evidence.
Ok. Please go back and bring up what you are talking about and which article because like I said, I have right now eleven notifications and yesterday I had over thirty.The article doesn't talk about other universes.
It may seem that way to you because you are thinking I can't know what I am talking about because I believe in God but that is not the case. I've spent literally years researching this topic. There are PhD's in the fields that have been educated in these areas that while not agreeing that there is a fine tuner believe that believing in a fine turner is a valid argument. Some in fact have gone from atheism to Christianity for this very reason.I'm at a loss for words here.
The irony is so mega obvious, one has to wonder if you're doing it on purpose.
That is up to the person who really wants to know DH. I know of one scientist that after discovering all this fine tuning recognized there was Intelligence behind it all. He didn't immediately come to the conclusion that it was the Biblical God but eventually that conclusion was reached through various avenues.Replace "bible" by any other religious book and "god" by the deity of that religion, and the argument doesn't change. At all.
Having said that.... you are just asserting the causal link. You need to actually demonstrate it, instead.
You're missing a few steps.
And you believe what you believe.Yes. Yes indeed. That is what you believe.
My point exactly.
Why would you need to know the origins? Explain.False. To get to probabilities of the universe / constants being the way they are, you need to know and understand:
- how universes come about
They are measured. They have a value because it is their value. How do you think physicists get their equations?- how the constants get their values assigned
They are what they are which is the point. That is how scientists have sent men to the moon and put up expeditions for space exploration. This isn't a guessing game DH. It is theoretical physics and it works very well, so well that we did understand the distances and dynamics enough to send men to the moon.- what the possible range distribution is of potential values of the constants (which, for all we know, might be a distribution of ONE, meaning that the values can't be anything but what they actually are)
Fine tuning doesn't go away even with trillions of trials.- how many trials there are (the amount of universes originating)
- ....
Yes, it is.None of this is known. At all.
We do know for instance like the nuclear force, we know exactly what it has to be for the universe to stay together and what would happen if it were smaller or larger by very small increments.Tweaking values in a hypothetical model in a computer simulation tells us nothing at all, except what that would look like in that hypothetical world where we take the equation of this universe and feed other values into it.
We can hypothesize just like in any realm of science. It is not nonsensical guesses but very educated presumptions based on WHAT WE KNOW, not what we don't know.Which, incidently, might not be sensical either. Who's to say that in other universes, the same equations apply?
And everyone is wrong, and it is not me that makes them wrong but the scientists in the field that makes them wrong. You can claim I am wrong about God all day long and that the majority of scientists would agree but these arguments against fine tuning are wrong and they would tell you so themselves.See? This is what everybody here keeps telling you.
I am not making the claims DH, the scientists are. If you are speaking to my conclusions that there is a fine tuner then that is a different thing.We have only this one universe that we know off. You need a *slightly* bigger sample, in order to be justified in making the claims that you do.
Look, I was the one that said I didn't read that paper. If you want to continue to focus on that then go right ahead but I am done discussing it. If you would like to argue about the actual issue then fine.Hey, if you're ok with what you've written I can't change your mind.
And what was his answer?
I'm not excited to track down another reference you've never read, no matter how much faith you have that this will finally be the one which has the answer you hope it does.
Is that what's actually in the papers they write or is it what you're sure must be in papers you've never read?
You didn't read the whole thing did you?That's both false and totally unrelated to the contents of the paper you posted. Did you read it?
The paper discusses empirical results measuring actual values of the CMB using a specific satellite, so no, I have no idea what you meant by the link. Go ahead and explain it to us.
This seriously made me laugh.Do you have any examples of anyone doing that? And any chance you're going to get around to discussing the content of the posts rather than making random off topic statements?
I do not deny evidence how could I possibly deny evidence, show me some evidence and I will believe, what you are calling evidence is not evidence, you think it is because you want to believe and you will accept anything that points to what you want to believe no matter how tenuous it might be.Ok, fair enough. You need some evidence that is sufficient enough to convince you that there is a God. But if you deny any and all evidence from the get go how would you ever feel there is even any evidence?
Wow, one whole scientist.That is up to the person who really wants to know DH. I know of one scientist that after discovering all this fine tuning recognized there was Intelligence behind it all. He didn't immediately come to the conclusion that it was the Biblical God but eventually that conclusion was reached through various avenues.
I do not deny evidence how could I possibly deny evidence, show me some evidence and I will believe, what you are calling evidence is not evidence, you think it is because you want to believe and you will accept anything that points to what you want to believe no matter how tenuous it might be.
You deny Islam yet over a billion people will tell you they have evidence that it's true, why don't you accept their evidence? because you are not open to believing what they believe that's why, you have exactly the same evidence as they do..... none.
Faith is obviously not enough for you to keep believing because you obviously need to have evidence just as I do, but because you 'Want' to believe you have allowed your standards of evidence to go through the floor, it seems your evidence standards would be higher if you were buying a car than they are for believing in your God.
The actual issue is that you still can't produce anything to back up your claims that you - or someone at least - has any idea what the odds are that our universe would end up the way it did. Until you do that all you've show is that some people say that things would be different if they were different. But until we know if they could have been any different, and if so how different they could have been, there's simply nothing to this.If you would like to argue about the actual issue then fine.
In the context of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, you have not yet provided any evidence.Ok, fair enough. You need some evidence that is sufficient enough to convince you that there is a God. But if you deny any and all evidence from the get go how would you ever feel there is even any evidence?
Feel free to point out where in the paper they are doing so.It is showing how the parameters are used in discovering things about our universe and how that works and how they can be tweaked in the same way.
Cognitive dissonance can produce rather interesting emotional reactions.This seriously made me laugh.
There are very good reasons why I don't believe in Islam. It is not the same reason you don't believe in Islam. You don't believe in any religion outright.I do not deny evidence how could I possibly deny evidence, show me some evidence and I will believe, what you are calling evidence is not evidence, you think it is because you want to believe and you will accept anything that points to what you want to believe no matter how tenuous it might be.
You deny Islam yet over a billion people will tell you they have evidence that it's true, why don't you accept their evidence? because you are not open to believing what they believe that's why, you have exactly the same evidence as they do..... none.
Faith is obviously not enough for you to keep believing because you obviously need to have evidence just as I do, but because you 'Want' to believe you have allowed your standards of evidence to go through the floor, it seems your evidence standards would be higher if you were buying a car than they are for believing in your God.
Now you know that is not what I meant.Wow, one whole scientist.
I've supplied numerous examples of scientists who claim it is highly unlikely and improbable that the universe is as it is due to chance or by accident.The actual issue is that you still can't produce anything to back up your claims that you - or someone at least - has any idea what the odds are that our universe would end up the way it did. Until you do that all you've show is that some people say that things would be different if they were different. But until we know if they could have been any different, and if so how different they could have been, there's simply nothing to this.
Pretending that I haven't been asking for this for pages and pages now doesn't make it any less real.
2.2. Parameter choices 2.2.1. Base parameters The first section of Table 1 lists our base parameters that have flat priors when they are varied, along with their default values in the baseline model. When parameters are varied, unless otherwise stated, prior ranges are chosen to be much larger than the posterior, and hence do not affect the results of parameter estimation. In addition to these priors, we impose a “hard” prior on the Hubble constant of [20, 100] km s−1 Mpc−1 . 2.2.2. Derived parameters Matter-radiation equality zeq is defined as the redshift at which ργ + ρν = ρc + ρb (where ρν approximates massive neutrinos as massless). The redshift of last-scattering, z∗, is defined so that the optical depth to Thomson scattering from z = 0 (conformal time η = η0) to z = z∗ is unity, assuming no reionization. The optical depth is given by τ(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 , (5) where ˙τ = −aneσT (and ne is the density of free electrons and σT is the Thomson cross section). We define the angular scale of the sound horizon at last-scattering, θ∗ = rs(z∗)/DA(z∗), where rs is the sound horizon rs(z) = Z η(z) 0 dη 0 √ 3(1 + R) , (6) with R ≡ 3ρb/(4ργ). Baryon velocities decouple from the photon dipole when Compton drag balances the gravitational force, which happens at τd ∼ 1, where (Hu & Sugiyama 1996) τd(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 /R. (7) Here, again, τ is from recombination only, without reionization contributions. We define a drag redshift zdrag, so that τd(η(zdrag)) = 1. The sound horizon at the drag epoch is an important scale that is often used in studies of baryon acoustic oscillations; we denote this as rdrag = rs(zdrag). We compute zdrag and rdrag numerically from camb (see Sect. 5.2 for details of application to BAO data).Feel free to point out where in the paper they are doing so.
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?