The fine tuning of the universe.

[pat34lee]

And in response to your edit, you sadly have underscored your ignorance of this topic.

This is the type of statement that gets you
reported. I know you have been warned several
times not to mention the other person or how
you view their intellect or lack of education.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is the type of statement that gets you
reported. I know you have been warned several
times not to mention the other person or how
you view their intellect or lack of education.

I'd follow that warning; I was banned for a month for calling people "dingus".

 

[pat34lee]

I'd follow that warning; I was banned for a month for calling people "dingus".

I haven't gotten hit that hard, but I did
get a 3 day ban for a quote about liberals.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I haven't gotten hit that hard, but I did
get a 3 day ban for a quote about liberals.

I think I have been banned 3 times? Definitely at least 2, though the first was entirely justified. I was kinda trolly when I joined.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, each of these possible universes would have particular properties that would be equally improbable.
The fact that it was me who won the lottery doesn´t change the fact that all possible outcomes were equally improbable - despite my personal amazement about being the lucky one.

If, in the British National Lottery, the machine spat out the same six numbers ten weeks in a row, the sophisticates might say, "Well that outcome is as likely as any other, and there is nothing which needs explaining." The overwhelming majority of the population, however, would be likely to differ, and they would say there must be a fault in the machine. I doubt if many people would want to bet on them being wrong about that.

 

[quatona]

If, in the British National Lottery, the machine spat out the same six numbers ten weeks in a row, the sophisticates might say, "Well that outcome is as likely as any other, and there is nothing which needs explaining."

Sure, but that´s not the analogy to the parameters of the universe being spit out once, to begin with.

 

[quatona]

I'm sorry, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. I'll use an example that I've heard in a debate: Say you have Millions and millions of white marbles in a pool and there is one black one. Pulling out a white marble is not that improbable but pulling out that one black one is astronomically low. Does that help make that argument clearer?

Yes, it makes the fault in your thinking clearer. You have determined after the fact that the result was special (in that it allowed for life) - while all others results would have been special if applying different criteria.

Its not about pulling out a universe that might have different laws of physics and different chemistry or something like that but for that universe to permit life,

In the same way my example is not about drawing some row of numbers but about pulling my numbers.

it is like pulling out the black marble from millions and millions of white ones.

Exactly: It´s like pulling out my numbers out of millions of other combinations.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure, but that´s not the analogy to the parameters of the universe being spit out once, to begin with.

The analogy is with whether or not, out of an enormous number of possible outcomes, involving numbers with thirty odd zeros on the end of them, the one which sticks out like a sore thumb as being different is the one which actually comes about.

 

[quatona]

The analogy is with whether or not, out of an enormous number of possible outcomes, involving numbers with thirty odd zeros on the end of them, the one which sticks out like a sore thumb as being different is the one which actually comes about.

...if the lottery draws my numbers out of all possible millions of combinations, that surely sticks out like a sore thumb.
The issue is not low probability, the issue is the assumption of significance of the applied criterium (post hoc, at that).
Unless we pre-assume that the existence of life was the intended purpose of "creation", there´s nothing objectively significant about the outcome life (except that it benefits us, just like the draw of my numbers benefits me - because they are mine) - particularly when we don´t know what particularities the other outcomes may have had.

 

[lesliedellow]

...if the lottery draws my numbers out of all possible millions of combinations, that surely sticks out like a sore thumb.

Why does it stick out like a sore thumb? You would be the only person likely to think that it did.

If the machine contained a hundred balls, and it spat out the first hundred digits of pi in sequence, that would be more likely to attract general attention.

Like the proverbial monkey banging away at a typewriter keyboard, and producing the complete works of Shakespeare. In theory that outcome is as likely as any other, but, if it actually happened, it would certainly be headline news around the world.

 

[quatona]

Why does it stick out like a sore thumb? You would be the only person likely to think that it did.

Yes, just the living beings are the only ones likely to think that life is significant.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes, just the living beings are the only ones likely to think that life is significant.

The significance of this universe is that it is one of the extremely few where chemistry can happen, compared with the countless trillions upon trillions where that isn't possible.

 

[quatona]

The significance of this universe is that it is one of the extremely few where chemistry can happen, compared with the countless trillions upon trillions where that isn't possible.

That´s the particularity and your criterium. I was discussing the significance of the applied criteria.

 

[lesliedellow]

That´s the particularity and your criterium. I was discussing the significance of the applied criteria.

If you threw a bucket of paint at a wall, and the paint hit the wall in such a way as to spell out the letters G-o-d-E-x-i-s-t-s, would it only be theists who found significance in that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the type of statement that gets you
reported. I know you have been warned several
times not to mention the other person or how
you view their intellect or lack of education.

But it shouldn't. Sometimes people try to speak authoritatively on matters that they have not studied at all. The response to my post demonstrated that fact. We are all ignorant about some topics. No one can know anything. I myself frequently note when I do not have enough knowledge to comment on one aspect or another of a topic because I do not have enough education on the topic to go that deep into it.

Most creationists know deep down that they are simply wrong about the topics that they post on. That may explain their over sensitivity on some matters.

 

[lesliedellow]

Most creationists know deep down that they are simply wrong about the topics that they post on. That may explain their over sensitivity on some matters.

My impression is that if somebody has (say) a degree in mechanical engineering, in the eyes of most creationists that makes them a scientist, and therefore an authority on the subject of Evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you threw a bucket of paint at a wall, and the paint hit the wall in such a way as to spell out the letters G-o-d-E-x-i-s-t-s, would it only be theists who found significance in that?

I would find it significant. But I would be thinking that someone probably prepared the wall ahead of time. I would be highly suspicious that a product that repels paint was applied ahead of time. The product in this video does that at the 4:00 mark:

 

[Subduction Zone]

My impression is that if somebody has (say) a degree in mechanical engineering, in the eyes of most creationists that makes them a scientist, and therefore an authority on the subject of Evolution.

Sadly I have seen that far too often. There are an amazing number of dentists listed in the sources of some creationist "experts". When I went to school there were bad jokes about the suicide rate of dentists. I suppose that creationism would be favorable to suicide, but not by much.

 

[KCfromNC]

That is a matter of opinion, and, unsurprisingly, it is not an opinion shared by religious physicists.

Nor is it shared by religious garbage men, religious construction workers, or religious stay at home moms. Perhaps the physics part is irrelevant to each of their faith in the matter regardless of what their day job is. And despite the assertions in the OP that these sorts of apologetics have anything to do with actual science.

 

[KCfromNC]

Perhaps one reason that you are getting so much flak from others is because you seem to be making an equivocation error with the term "fine tuned" your definition does not appear to be that of physicists.

Not to mention that many of those quotes mention the appearance of fine tuning rather than evidence of actual fine tuning.