• 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.

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So? Why? Why couldn't they be anything else?

If you don't know why they could or couldn't, your whole argument seems to fall apart from the start. I'd be careful pointing out that we're ignorant of how universes form.
 
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And you ignore my post to you....
I'm not in your time zone. It's 1am here. Only reason I'm on now is insomnia. But if you need me to spell out the hypocrisy of telling other people to read links you yourself haven't read, then sure, consider the hypocrisy pointed out.
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Excuse me, if I might interject for just a moment - it seems an analogous example would help OnceDeceived here.

Once, Here is some information I have to share with you about the Sentient Intelligence of the Ohio River. I refer to the article http://knorek.com/RR/Ohio/History/historyOH.htm where it states, and I quote "The Ohio River follows the state's southern border with West Virginia and Kentucky." - Hubert G. H. Wilhelm. This information has been quoted directly from this article that itself was researched and compiled by cartographers and historians in good standing. How does the Ohio River know to follow the State Lines like that?? It HAS to be Intelligent, especially given the improbability that a sentient river could go an infinite number of ways at an equally infinite number of points, this cannot be a coincidence!! The Proof is Plain for All to see!

Here is a Map that Shows how it follows the State Borders with Exact Precision for Hundreds upon Hundreds of Miles!



I know what you're going to say, I can hear it now... "...but the River just flows downhill, so it Has to go that way..." - Well, to all you Naysayers, if that's the way it Had to go, then it must be ESPECIALLY Sentient!! it would have to be Super Intelligent to know it could only go that one way, AND STILL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LINES!!!

How could you not see it for the Intelligent Sentient entity it is?

My view is that a Sentient Intelligent body of Water better explains the Ohio River following the state lines exactly than a purely gravitational-guided naturalistic explanation.

Get ready, get set, and go......
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I approve of this analogy.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
KC, I've provided multiple support for all of my claims while you are at zero. All assertion and no science.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please provide some documentation that shows scientists feel this example is worth scientific effort to show that it is fine tuned.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So do your sources - notice all the quotes about the appearance of design.
Yes, all that illusion. What evidence is there that it is an illusion? See the evidence is that it appears designed, the conclusion of those who don't believe in a Designer is that it is an illusion but alas no evidence supports their conclusion that it is just an illusion.
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
42
✟46,986.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
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?
I agreed that if the universe was formed by randomly selecting the values for the constants, each one from a huge range if possible values, then each combination could be considered unlikely. The problem is that we don't know how universes are formed, we don't know what values the constants can take, we don't know how many of them are interdependent etc.
Now if we were looking around on earth and see all this evolution happening and are able to figure out how long that takes we, without any knowledge of what the universe looks like, would predict a very old universe and a very large universe as being required for life to arise naturally.
If on the other hand we existed in a world where we believe the Genesis story and believe that God can just create things instantly out of nothing, can create complex life forms without any need for the iteration of evolution or the time evolution would require, we have no reason to hypothesize that the universe would be old and large and almost exclusively hostile to life ad we know it.

And Jesus performed miracles while on earth, that doesn't mean He doesn't allow people to believe what they wish.
This is exact my point. Your scriptures describe god doing super obvious things and it not affecting people's beliefs, therefore your defense that God would make the universe the kind that could allow life to arise naturally so that people wouldn't be forced to believe is undermined by your own theology.

So are you then saying that the multiverse/megaverse are the best explanation for the fine tuning then?
As far as I am aware, if the values can be varied and if they were all set in a random process the multiverse or mega verse are the best models we currently have. They are not demonstrably true, nor are those initial hypotheticals established, so the simple answer is, I don't know.

Interesting so what else makes the fine tuning special, aside from its life permitting values?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are unaware of the way things are formulated in physics.
The one time you post something rather than assert and whoops it was a mock objection to Bayesian Probability. Perhaps you should have made sure what you were posting. Here is the author explaining the paper you provided:

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/badbayesresponsemain.pdf
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Please provide some documentation that shows scientists feel this example is worth scientific effort to show that it is fine tuned.
Did you not read what I wrote, nor Clickie the Link I provided??

I'll provide it again, "The Ohio River follows the state's southern border with West Virginia and Kentucky." - Hubert G. H. Wilhelm. - http://knorek.com/RR/Ohio/History/historyOH.htm

Geography Professor Hubert G. H. Wilhelm, 1931-2015
Wilhelm was a distinguished Professor of Geography at Ohio University, where he taught for 35 years, further information on his career and contributions can be found here at http://www.ohio-forum.com/2015/12/geography-professor-hubert-g-h-wilhelm-1931-2015/

So, he is a Bonafide Professor of Geography, and made the statement in Quotes above, Proving that the Ohio River is a Sentient Intelligence with an innate ability to follow the State Lines for Hundreds of Miles!!

Why aren't you seeing this?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you don't know why they could or couldn't, your whole argument seems to fall apart from the start. I'd be careful pointing out that we're ignorant of how universes form.
Sorry, that is not the whole argument. Perhaps you should understand the whole argument and then post? If fine tuning fell apart there would be no scientific papers discussing it.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not going to spend time on this mockery. sorry.
 
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm not going to spend time on this mockery. sorry.
Not Mockery! This is as Much Sense as you're making - I'm glad you see this. Now, I don't understand how you think that everything you've done in this Entire thread is somehow different?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
KC, I've provided multiple support for all of my claims

Nope. Still waiting for your - or any - number for how unlikely our particular set of constants is and how you know it is correct.

while you are at zero.

Which claim of mine do you feel is unsupported? Please be specific.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are unaware of the way things are formulated in physics.

Since you're actively avoiding posting an answer to my physics question I'm not sure how your objection is relevant.

And that's assuming that you had any standing to question my physics background, which you don't. Where did you get your degree from?

The one time you post something rather than assert and whoops it was a mock objection to Bayesian Probability.

You'd know differently if you actually read it :

Although this originated as an April Fool's blog entry (Gelman, 2008), I realized that these are strong arguments to be taken seriously
Come on, at least try and read things before deciding they must be wrong.

If you'd have read it, you'd know my point wasn't that Bayesian analysis doesn't work, but that it requires careful attention to the probability distributions used. Since you haven't presented any I can't say you aren't being careful - you're not really being anything but evasive I guess. Given that, this whole tangent seems to be yet another attempt not to answer my recent questions.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sorry, that is not the whole argument. Perhaps you should understand the whole argument and then post? If fine tuning fell apart there would be no scientific papers discussing it.

Hey look, equivocation. Fine tuning, the observation in the scientific papers you presented isn't the fine tuning argument for Jesus that you've been trying to make here.

Anyway, feel free to try and make an argument that fine tuning requires gods without mentioning that our particular universe is unlikely. I doubt you'll have much luck.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0