Again, what is "required" is very well documented for the universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist. It is a scientific claim, not mine.
Upvote
0
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.
Again, what is "required" is very well documented for the universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist. It is a scientific claim, not mine.No it's not. There is nothing but wishful thinking to support the claim that anything is "required."
Yes, THEY ARE! Provide any documentation that claims that if the values were not precisely what they are that the universe would still exist and so would intelligent life.No, they are not required.
No they are not. No documentation is required to falsify the unsupported assertions of fine tuning.Yes, THEY ARE! Provide any documentation that claims that if the values were not precisely what they are that the universe would still exist and so would intelligent life.
No they are not. No documentation is required to falsify the unsupported assertions of fine tuning.
No it's not. What is recorded is the continued wishful thinking that fine tuning is a valid argument.
...because the burden of evidence is never to be on you, of course.Yes, THEY ARE! Provide any documentation that claims that if the values were not precisely what they are that the universe would still exist and so would intelligent life.
Please make an effort to realize it is not, okay.Please make an effort to recognize that fine tuning is a scientific phenomena ok. A scientific phenomena. Now my argument that theism is a better explanation is separate from the evidence of fine tuning. Please try to see the difference.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdfPlease make an effort to realize it is not, okay.
I wonder if you thought about what you were saying when you wrote this.
What we know is that the universe didn't exist and then it did.
Along with that existence the existence of the laws of physics and the values of the fundamental constants came into being.
That is why we make claims about things that are there....because they are there.
The facts are that the values (scientifically determined) are precisely what is required for the universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist in it.
"design" is not a pattern?This is not a pattern of something where none actually exists. We know for certain that the measurements need to be where they are.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf
It is not true that fine-tuning must eventually yield to the relentless march of science. Finetuning is not a typical scientific problem, that is, a phenomenon in our universe that cannot be explained by our current understanding of physical laws. It is not a gap. Rather, we are concerned with the physical laws themselves. In particular, the anthropic coincidences are not like, say, the coincidence between inertial mass and gravitational mass in Newtonian gravity, which is a coincidence between two seemingly independent physical quantities. Anthropic coincidences, on the other hand, involve a happy consonance between a physical quantity and the requirements of complex, embodied intelligent life. The anthropic coincidences are so arresting because we are accustomed to thinking of physical laws and initial conditions as being unconcerned with how things turn out. Physical laws are material and efficient causes, not final causes. There is, then, no reason to think that future progress in physics will render a life-permitting universe inevitable. When physics is finished, when the equation is written on the blackboard and fundamental physics has gone as deep as it can go, fine-tuning may remain, basic and irreducible.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.
I did.I wonder if you did...
There was no form to change from. There was no space (needed to change form), no energy (needed to change form) no matter (no quantum nothing to change form) and no time (needed to change form). Nothing of the natural universe existed...nothing and then it did.Actually, what we know is that the universe didn't exist as we know it. We still haven't ruled out that the universe didn't merely change form.
But okay.
So it doesn't matter its origins...which was my point. What we need to know to determine the fine tuning is this universe and this life.Well...obviously, yes. These things are properties of the universe. Off course when X comes into existence, its properties also come into existence. You kinda can't have one without the other........
There are two ways the universe came into existence:But you aren't making claims about the mere existence of things... you are making claims about how and why the things came into existence. There's a difference.
Interestingly enough, a life permitting universe according to scientists is rather surprising considering that life seems to be rare not only in our own universe but in a great vast number of possible universes.And that surprises you? You expected values that would make it impossible for life and the universe to exist?
Is car car design a pattern? Is a factory a pattern? You may say they are but they are not "patterns" in the way you were claiming."design" is not a pattern?
I am not making claims about the fine tuning other than what the scientists are claiming about the fine tuning. I am claiming that those values that exist, make a better argument for theism than for naturalism.Remember... you aren't just claiming that the values exist. You are making claims about HOW and WHY the values exist.
I don't see it that way because it isn't an argument from ignorance:The only thing this quote supports, is the fact that your god argument is nothing but an argument from ignorance.
The sad part is, that you don't realise it.
AS we know it is the argument. However, using computer modeling life in vast numbers of possible universes is very very rare and intelligent life vastly more rare. Saying that, one would need to provide evidence for other universes as well as other life forms in them to claim other life forms even exist. We KNOW of only one universe and only carbon based life so to claim possible universes with possible life really isn't an argument that can be supported anymore than God and even if true would not eliminate the fine tuning it would just push it back to the original or universe generator which would need to be fine tuned to allow for our fine tuning.Read that last part out loud a couple of times:
life as we know it would not exist
Interestingly enough, a life permitting universe according to scientists is rather surprising considering that life seems to be rare not only in our own universe but in a great vast number of possible universes.
Is car car design a pattern? Is a factory a pattern? You may say they are but they are not "patterns" in the way you were claiming.
I am not making claims about the fine tuning other than what the scientists are claiming about the fine tuning.
I am claiming that those values that exist, make a better argument for theism than for naturalism.
AS we know it is the argument.
However, using computer modeling life in vast numbers of possible universes is very very rare and intelligent life vastly more rare.
Saying that, one would need to provide evidence for other universes as well as other life forms in them to claim other life forms even exist. We KNOW of only one universe and only carbon based life
so to claim possible universes with possible life really isn't an argument that can be supported anymore than God
and even if true would not eliminate the fine tuning it would just push it back to the original or universe generator which would need to be fine tuned to allow for our fine tuning.
There was no form to change from
There was no space (needed to change form), no energy (needed to change form) no matter (no quantum nothing to change form) and no time (needed to change form).
Nothing of the natural universe existed...nothing and then it did.
So it doesn't matter its origins...which was my point.
What we need to know to determine the fine tuning is this universe and this life.
There are two ways the universe came into existence:
1. God created it.
2. It came about by an unknown natural cause.
We don't know for certain which is the cause.
So we need to determine from what we know (fine tuning) which cause is the best explanation.
We decide which one is the best explanation. I say it is better explained by theism. You say it is better explained by naturalism.
We are here, so yes we are in a universe that allows for intelligent life but the reason it does is what is surprising.Why is that interesting?
I can only repeat my question.....
Did you expect that this universe would be such that it would not be able to exist, or be such that life couldn't exist?
Or did you rather expect a universe in which you could actually exist, in which you could actually observe these constants?
And some are trivial and other are not. Fine tuning is not trivial.Apparantly, you aren't aware that we can find patterns in just about anything.
Actually all you all have done is spent 90 pages confusing evidence and conclusions.We have just spend 90 pages explaining to you that that is in fact exactly what you do.
Except that all this talk about fallacious argumentation is on your side. If you deny fine tuning for intelligent life you are denying scientific documentation that shows the fine tuning is real so that is fallacious on your part. If you claim I have unsupported premises then you deny that fine tuning is evidence of a fine tuner but that is fallacious because you have no evidence that prohibits the fine tuning being the result of a fine tuner.To bad it's a fallacious argument with unsupported premises.
You are claiming the fine tuning for intelligent life, a scientific claim is fallacious nonsense and ignorant? Tsk Tsk. Provide documentation that fine tuning for intelligent life is fallacious nonsense and ignorance.Indeed. Hindsight fallacious nonsense, with some argumentum ad ignorantiam sauce on top of it.
Unless you can show 1. That they couldn't be different and 2. That it would eliminate fine tuning even if they couldn't, fine tuning is not eliminated.It's also extremely speculative, as it isn't even known if the constants can actually have a different value then the one they have in this universe.
First of all, you were the one that asserted that we don't know if other universes exist nor whether or not carbon based life is the only life that exists. So that is your assertion and one that is not in evidence whatsoever, but for the scientists that have used computer programs that can hypothesize trillions of them, they still show life being extremely vastly rare in those trillions of those hypothesized universes.Indeed. But apparantly, that doesn't stop you from making claims about what other forms a universe could potentially have.
You are right I shouldn't have said supported I should have said testable and verifiable.Awesome. So your god argument can't be supported. Exactly.
I've seen nothing that refutes God as the best explanation for fine tuning.End thread?
Its simply true. Multiverse just pushes the fine tuning back to the universe generator."I want my cake and eat it too!!!"
Yes I do, because that is what physicists tell us. Nothing and then the universe.You don't know that.
Nope, see above.You don't know that either.
We know nothing about the the state of T = 0, as our models of physics break down at Planck time, which is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction ........ of a fraction of a second after T = 0. So the very very first moment we can "turn back time" to using math - the universe exists. Space exists. Energy exists. Time exists. Constants exist.
See above, my claims are based on science.Again, you don't know that.
Sure, it sounds logical - to me as well. But if there's one thing that is actually known about that state, is that it does not (necessarily) comply to our understanding of "logical".
It matters, once you start making claims about it.
Well, at least if you care about those claims being reflective of reality.
And unless you can show that they couldn't be different and how that would eliminate fine tuning and why we need to know how they are determined to understand how they work you have nothing.That only tells us what the values of the constants are. Not how they are determined. Not if they could have been different. It only tells us what they are and nothing else.
As I and others here have been telling your for +90 pages.
This is not a gap in knowledge which I've shown by a expert in the field saying it is not. You are denying what is know by science to dismiss the argument because I am claiming that theism explains it all better.You fail at imagination and you win at presenting false dichotomies.
3. it was created last thursday by extra-dimensional aliens
4. produced by high school multi-verse fairies as a science project
5. there is no universe, only the matrix, which exists in an infinite void
6. the great Cthulu laid a cosmic egg
7. there is only this universe in an eternal big bang - big crunch cycle
8. ......................................................
Actually we don't know at all what is the cause. In fact, we don't even know if the word "cause" is a sensible word to use for this...
Which is impossible for all explanations so we have to determine what best explains it.And we need a way to verify and test the proposed explanation.
Yet, if we don't know you don't know that a fine tuner is not necessary or the best explanation. You are asserting with your a priori anti-religious belief.No. I say nothing. I say "we don't know".
You.... you just make an assertion inspired by your a priori religious belief.
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?