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.
That premise just isn't true.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.
Neither is this one.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.
Actually the second theme is you're to think the flawed fine tuning argument prove God exists.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?
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
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.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.
I said: 2. I am wrong to think God is behind it.Actually the second theme is you're to think the flawed fine tuning argument prove God exists.
Ha! I didn't say that.
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.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".
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.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".
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
I don't see how that answers my question.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/
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.
Prove it. Present something other than your assertion its is incorrect.That premise just isn't true.
Neither is this one.
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.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?
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?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.
So? Why? Why couldn't they be anything else?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.
Ok I'm done. You are just twisting things and ignoring everything I say.
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/
So do your sources - notice all the quotes about the appearance of design.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.
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?