The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

There are similarly many parameters in play when you flip a coin. Doesn't make heads or tails an unlikely outcome.

So you disagree with the scientists that claim it is, fine. They understand that the universe is one. They don't believe that 1 out of 1 is a good argument for the fine tuning. If you do, then fine. That is your opinion. That doesn't make you right over the scientists and experts in the field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Maybe you are the cause of the confusion with your self-contradictory claims. Every considered that?

How is it self-contradictory. Explain and be specific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Looks like another case where we're supposed to believe this guy is an expert only in areas where he agrees with you.



Citation needed. Heck, I 'd be curious to find any scientists who are sure whatever was going on before the universe existed was totally random to begin with. I thought the discussion was between processes science can investigate and magic beings do whatever they were doing.

 

[KCfromNC]

So you disagree with the scientists that claim it is

I'm pretty sure that most scientists think that heads or tails is a likely outcome from a coin flip.

They understand that the universe is one. They don't believe that 1 out of 1 is a good argument for the fine tuning. If you do, then fine.

And if I don't? Which in this case I don't because I can't make heads or tails of what it is you're trying to say. If that was mean to represent what I've been posting in this thread it failed miserably.

 

[KCfromNC]

cut video

Relevance? Was that the video where he says that the fine tuning argument isn't evidence for god(s)? Do you agree with him or do you somehow know better than the person you cited as an authority?

 

[Athée]

Wow I missed a ton of action this morning. Apologies that I am responding to a post so many pages back

You are asserting that life could happen by chance, which couldn't happen if not for the precise values we are discussing.

This is correct. We exist in a universe that has a set of values that allow for the kind of universe that could give rise to life by chance. Regardless of how we get those values to begin with (and this is entirely an unknown ) it remains the case that this is the kind of universe you would expect if life were to arrive by chance and not at all what I would expect if it were designed.

Again, it is if God wanted to have a choice of what to believe. If God put us on a planet without any other explanation it isn't a choice it is necessary to believe in Him

This is patently false according to your own scriptures. God lived with the isrealites day and night as a visible presence while they allegedly ctossed the desert. Jesus allowed Thomas to put his fingers in the holes. God demonstrated himself so powerful on the road to Damascus that Paul was immediately overcome. This, God wanted things to be uncertain bit seems more like a post hoc rationalization to deal with the lack of evidence for God than it does a reasonable theological position.

Which would be futile if not for the fine tuning concerning the life permitting values of the universe. Without the order and the chemistry being what it is there would not be life at all, and of course the majority of scientists don't believe it could have happened like this by chance.

I am not at all sure about this claim about what scientists think. If you asked them: if all the values could be chosen independentlyat random from a near infinite set of potential valus for each constant, would you consider any given outcome likely or unlikely? Then the answer will be unlikely. This is not the same as saying it could not have happened by chance, this is what the multiverse and mega verse hypotheses are about. Moreover once the universe generating mechanism was in play it guaranteed at least one set of values would be the case. The one that exists happens to allow for life rather than planets made of gold but both are equally probable as far as we know.

You are claiming that not only are the values of precisely set parameters of 30 related and independent values and the laws of physics all just "look" like they are all just by chance?

Yes to my mind there is no appearance of design in the values themselves. It is only looking backwards and putting a value on our own existence that the values can be seen as special.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Relevance? Was that the video where he says that the fine tuning argument isn't evidence for god(s)? Do you agree with him or do you somehow know better than the person you cited as an authority?

Ok I'm done. You are just twisting things and ignoring everything I say. I'm not going to spend my time with that kind of tactic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wow I missed a ton of action this morning. Apologies that I am responding to a post so many pages back

This is correct. We exist in a universe that has a set of values that allow for the kind of universe that could give rise to life by chance. Regardless of how we get those values to begin with (and this is entirely an unknown ) it remains the case that this is the kind of universe you would expect if life were to arrive by chance and not at all what I would expect if it were designed.

You said you agreed that the universe could not have the values it does by chance but you feel the universe appears as if it is all just a lucky coincidence of chance? Could you explain?

This is patently false according to your own scriptures. God lived with the isrealites day and night as a visible presence while they allegedly ctossed the desert. Jesus allowed Thomas to put his fingers in the holes. God demonstrated himself so powerful on the road to Damascus that Paul was immediately overcome. This, God wanted things to be uncertain bit seems more like a post hoc rationalization to deal with the lack of evidence for God than it does a reasonable theological position.

And Jesus performed miracles while on earth, that doesn't mean He doesn't allow people to believe what they wish.

I am not at all sure about this claim about what scientists think. If you asked them: if all the values could be chosen independentlyat random from a near infinite set of potential valus for each constant, would you consider any given outcome likely or unlikely? Then the answer will be unlikely. This is not the same as saying it could not have happened by chance, this is what the multiverse and mega verse hypotheses are about. Moreover once the universe generating mechanism was in play it guaranteed at least one set of values would be the case. The one that exists happens to allow for life rather than planets made of gold but both are equally probable as far as we know.

So are you then saying that the multiverse/megaverse are the best explanation for the fine tuning then?

Yes to my mind there is no appearance of design in the values themselves. It is only looking backwards and putting a value on our own existence that the values can be seen as special.

Even if we were not around to consider the implications, the universe would still have to be fine tuned for life other than us. Even if there was no life the fine tuning would still be there. The fact that we are is of course a very important feature but it is not the only feature that makes the fine tuning special.

 

[[serious]]

This post has two common themes:
1. That we don't know why the fine tuning exists.
2. I am wrong to think God is behind it.

If we don't know why the fine tuning exists and there is no natural reason that we know of why do discount God?

It's interesting you are taking that tack, because you've used that same logic to dismiss other arguments:

1. We don't know if other universes exist.
2. We are wrong to think multiverses can explain apparent fine tuning.

1. We don't know what existed prior to the big bang.
2. It totally wasn't matter, energy, or space.

1. We don't know if the constants can be different than they are.
2. Them being what they are can be said to be unlikely.

 

[Davian]

So are you trying to say that it is not a scientific explanation?

Bingo. As in, your inability to present this "evidence" in the form of a testable falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's interesting you are taking that tack, because you've used that same logic to dismiss other arguments:

1. We don't know if other universes exist.

We don't.

2. We are wrong to think multiverses can explain apparent fine tuning.

True but not because we don't know if they exist. There are reasons why they don't explain fine tuning.

1. We don't know what existed prior to the big bang.

There wasn't a prior to the big bang as far as the universe goes.

2. It totally wasn't matter, energy, or space.

They didn't exist until they did.

1. We don't know if the constants can be different than they are.

Scientists claim that there is no reason why they can't be different.

2. Them being what they are can be said to be unlikely.

Yes, that is the consensus.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How is it self-contradictory. Explain and be specific.

I, as well as others, already did.

First, you said that the values of the constants is evidence of fine tuning because "only these values could result in a universe with life" - which assumes that the values could have been different.

Then, you say that if the values could not have been different, that it's even more evidence of "fine tuning".

So you wish to have your cake and eat it too.

Those two points contradict eachother.
You want to have it both ways.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Look at the links I've supplied.

I'm asking YOU a question.
Please answer it. YOU are the one making the claims here.

Don't tell me to go scroll through this thread to find links burried therein, to read page-long articles that might or might not have an answer to my question.

Make your own point.

I'll repeat my question for the third time:

How do you calculate the probability of X being the way it is, if X is the only example you have and when it is unknown how X comes about?

If you don't know how to do it, just say so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How is it an intellectually dishonest way?

Did you even read the post?

Dawkins: "when we look at the design of the human body..."
Creationist: "Ha! Design of the human body! Therefor, designer".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Look at the links I've supplied.

Why?

To avoid having to admit that it can't be done off course...

 

[[serious]]

Look at the links I've supplied.

Ahem...

I provided the paper for information purposes for Athee and wanted it to be a scientific paper. I haven't read it.

 

[AirPo]

Ok I'm done. You are just twisting things and ignoring everything I say. I'm not going to spend my time with that kind of tactic.

the irony!

 

[Oncedeceived]

I, as well as others, already did.

First, you said that the values of the constants is evidence of fine tuning because "only these values could result in a universe with life" - which assumes that the values could have been different.

Then, you say that if the values could not have been different, that it's even more evidence of "fine tuning".

So you wish to have your cake and eat it too.

Those two points contradict eachother.
You want to have it both ways.

It is a realty DH. If the values could be different and were what they are (which is what most scientists believe)the ones we have are fine tuned for intelligent life.

If the values could not be different and there is no reason for them being what they are it would make this universe even more fine tuned because the fine tuning is not only precise and necessary for intelligent life, they are set there with no other way possible for the universe to be anything but fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ahem...

So?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you even read the post?

Dawkins: "when we look at the design of the human body..."
Creationist: "Ha! Design of the human body! Therefor, designer".

Ha! I didn't say that.