The fine tuning of the universe.

[Veera Chase]

You are trivializing fine tuning, which is fine if you want to dismiss a serious phenomena that scientists the world over are exploring that is up to you.

There is nothing to trivialise because there is no such thing as fine tuning, it's just another way of keeping people believing in creationism, it's a racket designed to relieve people of their money, the more people who believe the more money they make, look at the bogus Kent Hovind, a con man making a fortune from gullible people.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure you get the point. In what universe do atheist Scientists indicate fine tuning is something that's actually derived of intelligence, then continue to be atheists?

Some haven't, they have been convinced by the evidence, they let the evidence lead them wherever it went. Some hold out hope like you that there are quantzillion, billion universes to explain one like ours. They hope for something that will prohibit the variables from being different. Even though if they couldn't be different the law that would not allow for them to be different would mean that law would have to be finely tuned to prohibit them from being different.

What do you know of the conditions that this universe began from?

Absolutely nothing. That is what this universe began from. NO space, no matter, no energy and no time.

Is there only one? are there a quantzillion, billion universes?

The evidence is that there is one.

Can these variables even be different?

There is nothing that we know of that prohibits them from the ability of being different. If they couldn't it doesn't explain fine tuning. That is why the experts are holding out hope for the quantzillion, billion universes but then they are faced with what original fine tuned universe generator and it all just is bumped back to that universe generator.

My analogy is essentially a mirror of the nonsense you're putting forward. You don't know this universe isn't one in an infinite number of universes, nor do you even know if these constants can be different, yet you're positing that there has to be an intelligence for essentially the same nonsensical reasons that I posit an intelligent river.

That simply is not the case.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is nothing to trivialise because there is no such thing as fine tuning, it's just another way of keeping people believing in creationism, it's a racket designed to relieve people of their money, the more people who believe the more money they make, look at the bogus Kent Hovind, a con man making a fortune from gullible people.

This is a scientifically falsified statement. There is such a thing as fine tuning and it is a scientific discovery. Experts in the fields of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and astro-biology who are atheists, deists, agnostic, secular, Christian or Islamic agree that the universal fine tuning is a real phenomena.

Your rant against people who you feel con people out of money has nothing to do with scientific discoveries of the fine tuning.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Some haven't, they have been convinced by the evidence, they let the evidence lead them wherever it went. Some hold out hope like you that there are quantzillion, billion universes to explain one like ours. They hope for something that will prohibit the variables from being different. Even though if they couldn't be different the law that would not allow for them to be different would mean that law would have to be finely tuned to prohibit them from being different.

...so they still aren't convinced. What does that tell you?

Absolutely nothing. That is what this universe began from. NO space, no matter, no energy and no time.

How is it that YOU know this, yet nobody else in the field of Cosmology does? Why aren't you being consulted by the world's most eminent Cosmologists?

The evidence is that there is one.

well, Great! so your sample size has 100% of universes that are able to support life, all with the exact same constants.

There is nothing that we know of that prohibits them from the ability of being different.

and nothing that we know of that could make them different either. If you think they could, by what mechanism can this be done?

If they couldn't it doesn't explain fine tuning.

Correct! so Fine Tuning might not be a thing at all, Right?

That is why the experts are holding out hope for the quantzillion, billion universes but then they are faced with what original fine tuned universe generator and it all just is bumped back to that universe generator.

That Scientists are using the term in no way lends it validity to an intelligent fiddler. for the most part, the anthropic principle and multiverse are far & away the best candidates according to the professional cosmologists working in this field.

That simply is not the case.

but Occams Razor says it is. Apart from one's faith based belief, there's simply nothing gained by adding another layer of complexity over the top of it all. What's wrong with just saying "the river was already going that way, it just so happens that we used the river as a handy marker to demarcate the states, post fact"...

 

[Oncedeceived]

...so they still aren't convinced. What does that tell you?

You mean some are still not convinced? That tells me that they are still holding out for an explanation that will eliminate a fine tuner.

How is it that YOU know this, yet nobody else in the field of Cosmology does? Why aren't you being consulted by the world's most eminent Cosmologists?

They do know that is where I've gotten my information. There is no "prior" to the beginning of the universe. What we see as far back as we do there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time.

well, Great! so your sample size has 100% of universes that are able to support life, all with the exact same constants.

Which is fine tuned and the best explanation is a fine tuner. The atheistic and secular scientists are bringing in other universes to counter that fine tuning.

and nothing that we know of that could make them different either. If you think they could, by what mechanism can this be done?

Exactly, but the point is that it doesn't matter. If it mattered whether or not the variable could be different or not doesn't change the fine tuning problem.

Correct! so Fine Tuning might not be a thing at all, Right?

No, fine tuning is here to stay. It comes down to the explanation for it.

That Scientists are using the term in no way lends it validity to an intelligent fiddler. for the most part, the anthropic principle and multiverse are far & away the best candidates according to the professional cosmologists working in this field.

Ok, then that is what you should be arguing for rather than fine tuning doesn't exist and asserting that a fine tuner is stupid. A fine tuner explaining fine tuning is hardly a jump in conclusions but if you feel there is a better explanation, that my friend is what the discussion is suppose to be about. Which explanation used to explain fine tuning is best fitting the evidence.

but Occams Razor says it is. Apart from one's faith based belief, there's simply nothing gained by adding another layer of complexity over the top of it all. What's wrong with just saying "the river was already going that way, it just so happens that we used the river as a handy marker to demarcate the states, post fact"...

It is adding nothing, an explanation is the why of something not the adding of something.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You mean some are still not convinced? That tells me that they are still holding out for an explanation that will eliminate a fine tuner.

a non-believer just wouldn't consider it, it's simply a non-starter. Everything else we once didn't know but now know has turned out to be not supernatural and has a valid naturalistic explanation. a Scientist wouldn't make an assumption on the cause of such an unknown let alone the one assumption without any supporting evidence.

They do know that is where I've gotten my information. There is no "prior" to the beginning of the universe. What we see as far back as we do there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time.

Citation please... all the sources I know of state that everything for this universe was there at the beginning.

Which is fine tuned and the best explanation is a fine tuner. The atheistic and secular scientists are bringing in other universes to counter that fine tuning.

again, you don't have a foundation for the fine tuning being an actual thing let alone a fine tuner for which there's never been any evidence of. The Multiverse hypothesis has theoretical evidence in its favour. No evidence for a fine tuner.

Exactly, but the point is that it doesn't matter. If it mattered whether or not the variable could be different or not doesn't change the fine tuning problem.

It Does! If the variables couldn't be different then there's nothing to fine tune! Therefore, No Fine Tuner!!

No, fine tuning is here to stay. It comes down to the explanation for it.

Fine tuning is a philosophical talking point IMO. People talking about a sunrise and sunset is hardly evidence for the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth - Am I Right?

Ok, then that is what you should be arguing for rather than fine tuning doesn't exist and asserting that a fine tuner is stupid. A fine tuner explaining fine tuning is hardly a jump in conclusions but if you feel there is a better explanation, that my friend is what the discussion is suppose to be about. Which explanation used to explain fine tuning is best fitting the evidence.

As I've already said, the Anthropic Principle, and the Multiverse hypothesis. Both are plausible and have theoretical science underpinning in their favour. there is absolutely no evidence, theoretical or otherwise for an omnipotent fine tuner.

It is adding nothing, an explanation is the why of something not the adding of something.

But a fine tuner would then have to be explained. Where was this fine tuner standing while doing the pre-universe tuning, was this fine tuner standing in some other universe while cranking this one into life? it raises so many more questions...!

 

[Veera Chase]

The sad thing is that you are so anti-theism that you lose all your rationality and reason and you make no reasonable objections to the facts.

I don't need to be rational or reasonable when I'm talking about the figments of other peoples imaginations,
there is absolutely nothing tangible to warrant discussion, the talk can only ever be about the words used.

Be honest, when people talk about Gods what are they actually talking about?

 

[Athée]

I would be interested to know which other religions claim that God created the universe for us and that it should appear designed.

Prayer never goes unanswered, it might not be in the way that one wishes at the time but it is effective. How do you propose to show that it is ineffective?

Lol, it's easy, all I do is read what Jesus actually said about prayer at various points and then compare that to real life observations.
Here is what Jesus had to say on the subject:
1) And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.(Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)

4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)

6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)

8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)

9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

This obviously not the experience of Christians so either Jesus was wrong or was intentionally deceiving (not out of character for God), either way prayer doesn't work the way he said it would.

This might interest you: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#Article

This seems pretty weak but I am happy to let it pass for now since it is not really a main point. We can talk about how badly the bible fails as prophecy some other time

. It was thought throughout history that the universe was eternal.

Citation needed. This notion seems to contradict many of the creation myths that were in that earlier link.

The universe is spread out...no one understood that the universe was expanding and there was no evidence that it was until recently

This is not convincing at all. You are attempting to read modern science back into a book that never contained it. Noticed that the Bible says stretched out in the past tense so even your own book described the action as compelted, not an ongoing expansion as we actually observe...if you will pardon the pun...that argument was quite a stretch

Intelligent beings are predicted and found in a universe that specifically allows them to exist. Now obviously this is post hoc as predictive but intelligence I believe is better explained by theism than unguided evolution.

Yes post hoc, well spotted. The fun thing about post hoc explanations is that they are really easy to invent in such a way that they explain the data.

The Bible claims there are mountains at the bottom of the oceans and also that springs are found there as well.

Where is that? And does the bible make any claims that are not consistent with what we know about science?

The Bible claims that there is no new material ever created after the Creation of the universe and we now know that is completely the case. Everything that exists existed at the very beginning.

Um I don't think so. I seem to remmer this long string of creation after the initial heavens and earth bit. Are you just talking about matter in general?

According to the Bible the sun had a cycle but at the time people thought the sun and earth were still

Where is this?

Taking abiogenesis out of the picture for instance, evolution doesn't explain where the needed information came from to create the next generation. Evolution doesn't tell us how DNA information started nor how the order of such exists. So while evolution is very much evident, that in no way explains design nor existence.

Taking abiogenesis out of the picture and then talking exclusively about abiogenesis. ..

For effect for whom? Explain?

For whoever he was writing to, speaking to etc. It honestly doesn't matter though unless you want to pursue it.

Not necessarily intelligent life as I said.

Which again emphasizes that the only special thing in our universe is life. So why is this more special than a universe that is "fine tuned" to allow one single planetoid made of gold?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evidence do you have that it is not?

Meet your own burden of proof.
Don't ask me to prove a negative.

If it appears to be designed and one claims it is not actual design and is an illusion then one must show why it is only an illusion and not actual design because design is real and an illusion is not.

I'm not making claims. I'm responding to your claim.
I'm saying that we don't have enough information to make any claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By comparing it with chance, it turns out that prayer and chance get exactly the same results, 50-50, prayer works as often as it does not.

I think that your figures are overly generous. Yes, prayer and chance have the same results, but the things asked for usually come to fruition far less than 50%. If prayer was that successful it would be a tool to riches. Just keep investing in high risk stocks and pray that your investment pays off. If half of them did one could become a billionaire.

 

[AirPo]

All you are doing is claiming I am wrong about my conclusions. That isn't a different version of the phenomena of fine tuning, it is a different conclusion based upon it. All of you have a real issue with confusing the evidence and conclusions based on that evidence.

Which is correct, because your conclusion is wrong. Nothing presented supports your conclusion. It is illogical. That has been pointed out again and again, but that fact gets ignored.

 

[AirPo]

But the evidence is the fine tuning of the universe and you and the others are denying the evidence and then claiming there is no evidence. You can claim if you want that you don't share the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to make my conclusion or that there is a better explanation that explains the evidence but you can't claim there is no evidence because that is very well documented.

It's not evidence of anything other than our tendency to notice patterns.

 

[AirPo]

The evidence that the river runs precisely alone the state line is in evidence and then when it doesn't it will show that the river flows where it flows.

You are trivializing fine tuning, which is fine if you want to dismiss a serious phenomena that scientists the world over are exploring that is up to you.

It's not a serious phenomena.

 

[AirPo]

This is a scientifically falsified statement. There is such a thing as fine tuning and it is a scientific discovery. Experts in the fields of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and astro-biology who are atheists, deists, agnostic, secular, Christian or Islamic agree that the universal fine tuning is a real phenomena.

Your rant against people who you feel con people out of money has nothing to do with scientific discoveries of the fine tuning.

Your rants about fine tuning have nothing to do with scientific discovery.

 

[AirPo]

Some haven't, they have been convinced by the evidence, they let the evidence lead them wherever it went.

And some let the alledged evidence led them where they want to go, which is where the not evidence in the first place doesn't point to.

 

[AirPo]

The sad thing is that you are so anti-theism that you lose all your rationality and reason and you make no reasonable objections to the facts.

This just sums up all the projection in one sentence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Read on:

As several discussants have noted, the objections to Bayesian methods in my original article were not entirely sincere. Or, to put it another way, these are sincere objections that I have thought through and, I believe, have largely been resolved.

Great. Now all you have to do is tell us which patricular Bayesian method you're using and show that your approach doesn't fall into the traps mentioned in the articles. So far, all you've done is say the word Bayesian as if it magically makes your guesses somehow mean something. Let's see your work.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Absolutely nothing.

So, while you know "absolutely nothing" about the initial conditions that this universe came from, why are you making claims about its origins???

 

[KCfromNC]

Its not God of the Gaps. It is an argument of what we know what we don't. The fine tuning is real. It is scientifically determined.

Yes, fine tuning is real - if things were different they'd be different. But you're claiming a lot more than this - that you've somehow determined how universes form and what the odds are that any particular type of universe will happen. The latter part is what's the ignorance comes from. There's simply no way for you to know those things as your inability to provide anything concrete when asked for details aptly demonstrates.

 

[KCfromNC]

Straw man. I never said that atheistic scientists agree that God is the explanation and in fact, made it clear they did not.

So when you quoted them on the subject of fine tuning you didn't want us to accept them as authorities on the fine tuning? What's this, then?

Yes, there are a few that are supporting my conclusions that I have included. I've included atheist scientists, Deist scientist, secular scientists and Christian scientists.