The fine tuning of the universe.

[AirPo]

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.

That premise just isn't true.

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.

Neither is this one.

 

[AirPo]

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?

Actually the second theme is you're to think the flawed fine tuning argument prove God exists.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, you're [not] answering a question I didn't ask. To repeat myself yet again, I'm just asking you to tell us exactly how unlikely our universe's set of constant is and what peer-reviewed publication that number came from.


That's patently false :

http://new.exchristian.net/2013/07/addressing-and-refuting-cosmological.html

In regards to reponse to questions, it is like dealing with a politician.

No matter what question asked of them, they answer the one you didnt ask.

With any weak argument, it is important to evade certain questions and control the discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

This is the link on Probability. This is exactly what you are asking for. I tried to put up the information but there are too many images in it to do so. You don't have to go through anything else to get to the probability it is right there.


https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/10-nice-things-about-bayes-theorem/

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually the second theme is you're to think the flawed fine tuning argument prove God exists.

I said: 2. I am wrong to think God is behind it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ha! I didn't say that.

You say it everytime you post a quote of a scientist that uses the words "fine tuning" and put it up as "evidence" for a "tuner".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ahem...

And you ignore my post to you....

 

[Oncedeceived]

You say it everytime you post a quote of a scientist that uses the words "fine tuning" and put it up as "evidence" for a "tuner".

Then post what I say and not what I don't. If you want to believe the world is made up of illusions of things you might want to take up Buddhism.

 

[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".

In reality one must pretend design is an illusion if you don't allow for a Designer. There you go, you can use this now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is a realty DH.

It's not.

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.

"fine tuned for" meaning "allowing for ...as we know it".

Stop with the loaded language allready.
Also, you have yet to post evidence that that is what most scientists believe.

You don't support such a claim with a couple of quotes. Where's the survey that shows a majority of scientists believe this?

If the values could not be different and there is no reason for them being what they are

If they couldn't be any different, then the reason for them being what they are is........ that they couldn't be anything else. Derp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is the link on Probability. This is exactly what you are asking for. I tried to put up the information but there are too many images in it to do so. You don't have to go through anything else to get to the probability it is right there.


https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/10-nice-things-about-bayes-theorem/

I don't see how that answers my question.

Please quote the part you think answers my question and explain how that part answers my question.

Here's the question again:

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?

 

[DogmaHunter]

In reality one must pretend design is an illusion if you don't allow for a Designer. There you go, you can use this now.

It's fascinating how you continue to miss the point.

Although I get why you can't allow yourself to acknowledge the point that is being made here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That premise just isn't true.

Neither is this one.

Prove it. Present something other than your assertion its is incorrect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see how that answers my question.

Please quote the part you think answers my question and explain how that part answers my question.

Here's the question again:

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?

The whole thing answers your question very specifically. If you don't understand it that is not my fault. It is telling you how probability x can be calculated.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's fascinating how you continue to miss the point.

Although I get why you can't allow yourself to acknowledge the point that is being made here.

No, it is amazing to me that there is evidence of design all over the place and you and others claim it is an illusion. What evidence do you have it is just an illusion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not.



"fine tuned for" meaning "allowing for ...as we know it".

Stop with the loaded language allready.
Also, you have yet to post evidence that that is what most scientists believe.

You don't support such a claim with a couple of quotes. Where's the survey that shows a majority of scientists believe this?



If they couldn't be any different, then the reason for them being what they are is........ that they couldn't be anything else. Derp.

So? Why? Why couldn't they be anything else?

 

[bhsmte]

It's fascinating how you continue to miss the point.

Although I get why you can't allow yourself to acknowledge the point that is being made here.

Way too much risk in acknowledging the point. It must be avoided at all costs.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok I'm done. You are just twisting things and ignoring everything I say.

Acting offended as an excuse to ignore reasonable questions would be one approach I might take if I really needed to continue believing things despite the doubts those questions raise.

Guess this means you're not having any luck finding actual science which backs up what you've claimed as scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is the link on Probability. This is exactly what you are asking for. I tried to put up the information but there are too many images in it to do so. You don't have to go through anything else to get to the probability it is right there.


https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/10-nice-things-about-bayes-theorem/

Given equation 3, you've moved from not being able to quantify one probability to not being able to show us three different ones. Progress?

Also, note the weaknesses of this approach outlined here : http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/badbayesmain.pdf. It points out the problems many of us have identified - mainly that it is kinda tough figuring out the odds of something which happened in a place we can't observe using processes we don't understand.

Of course any objections are premature since you haven't shown us that scientists actually use this approach in practice to answer the question we've been asking. First things first - what specific odds do scientists place on the universal constants ending up as they have on our universe?

 

[KCfromNC]

No, it is amazing to me that there is evidence of design all over the place and you and others claim it is an illusion.

So do your sources - notice all the quotes about the appearance of design.