The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Agree with what? Not that it matters - if your list of a dozen or so people is "all the scientists that agree with it" you're way off base claiming a scientific consensus.

If you really knew your stuff on this issue you would recognize all the names on that list as the top people in the fields that matter to this issue. It is a telling point that you are unaware of that.

And what does any of this have to do with the fact you tried to sneak a neuroscientist in as a supposed expert on how universes form? I can see you're having trouble finding more than a handful of scientists to quote-mine from, but that was a pretty obvious bit of spin. And what are we going to find if we dig further into these quotes? What other tricks are hiding in there?

Oh my goodness. I didn't try to "sneak" anything in and I wrote out after his name that he was a neuroscientist for all to see. I also didn't claim he knew how universes form. You are making so many straw men here that we have to hope no one lights a match.

I also want to note that you are very good at making ad hominem remarks and accusations and completely empty in regard to backing up anything you assert in this thread. I think that is glaringly apparent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Despite not reading the paper you're confident it doesn't contain anything which might hurt your argument? Interesting.

I am because I have spent a great number of years reading what those scientists and others in the field write on the subject.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you probably should leave the discussion to people who have.

Oh the irony.

None of that contradicts what I've said. The middle sentence is explicitly agreeing with my interpretation and the last sentence is talking about apparent coincidences, with coincidences in quotes, which should tell an observant reader that there's more to the story. Of course, to have a chance at being an observant reader you'd have to have read the paper in the first place...

You know, if I haven't read something I admit it. Which I did because if not you wouldn't have known that I didn't. A knowledgeable reader would recognize that when they have coincidences in an article they are aware of how scientists view that word and how unlikely they believe it fits with the observations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see how that article is related to the point at hand.
I invite you to explain it, instead of leaving me guessing.

The point this was addressing (and if you can't keep track of your own arguments understand that I am posting to many people compared to you just commenting to me so if you are not sure please go and look to what I was commenting on)was about the possibilities of life/other universes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't pretend to have the required knowledge to be able to answer that question with "yes" or "no".

You should, if you wish to pretend to know more than the scientists that are making the claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The point is that even your own references say that your claims about the unlikelihood of our universe developing as it has are unfounded.

That is simply untrue.

 

[Veera Chase]

I gave a link with all the scientists that agree with fine tuning. Stop with the false accusations.

What is the point of believing something if you can't prove it or if there is no evidence, it's as meaningful as believing in fairies and just as productive.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. You're taking quotes and making claims about it yourself.

What quotes have I taken and made claims about myself that are not in keeping with the scientists that made them. Provide them.

Projection.

How could that even be true when in fact, I've provided numerous quotes from scientists from all worldviews that claim the same thing? Think about that. Atheists, Deists, agnostics, Christians, and secular unbelievers. All claim the same thing and yet you think I am projecting. Time to look in the mirror perhaps? Those atheist scientists that agree with fine tuning are not hiding from the evidence. They may be looking to explain it in natural terms but they aren't hiding from the truth of the actual phenomena like most are here. They are claiming the scientists that are Theists are making up things for their God, they have the same data. They know it is what it is and while they don't believe themselves that the apparent design is true design they acknowledge its there just the same.

How is that nonsensical? For crying out loud, it's even one of your premises.....
That the universe is the way it is, because the constants have the values that they have. Change the constants = change the universe.
Right? How is that nonsensical?

You are so oversimplifying the issue that it makes it nonsensical.

Yes, you successfully repeated what I said.

Really?

No, it's what the quotes mean. They don't mean what you pretend they mean.

I'm not pretending they mean anything. They mean the universe is fine tuned for intelligent life. That is what the scientists say and that is what I said they meant.

so..... that completely destroys your conclusion. Because for your conclusion to be supported by evidence, we need such a model. But we don't have such a model at this time.

You are going to have to explain this one.

All of it. It explains nothing. It only asserts stuff.
"god-dun-it" has the same explanatory power as "the magical undetectable dragon dun it".

That is because you don't understand the concept.

It's not usefull, it doesn't make predictions, it's not testable, it doesn't teach us anything about anything.

There were many predictions. That the universe had a beginning, if this had been taken as truth we would have known this much earlier than we did. It was predicted that the universe would appear designed and it is. It was predicted that it was being spread out...expanding. Most importantly, it taught us that we COULD understand the universe because it was made for us to comprehend it. WE couldn't test anything with out that. Not only is the universe fine tuned but we set in the only location from which science can take place in the universe. Think about that one.

As a model of reality, it is entirely useless.

As a model it is absolutely necessary.

Models that are not verifiable, don't make predictions, aren't falsifiable are infinite in number and they explain exactly nothing.

I know God must laugh at that.

Funny question to ask in response to my prediction that you will ignore my explanation and pretend it was never given.

Well you win, I don't know what explanation you gave.

There is exactly zero data that any entity turned knobs to "fine tune" this universe for the purpose of bringing forward life. Let alone any data that identifies this unsupported entity as being the god of the religion you happen to be following.

Did I claim even once that there was data that any entity turned knobs? I don't think I have. Yet, I've said that the evidence supports that conclusion.

The only thing supported by science is that there are physical constants that have a certain value. And that's it. You don't know why those values and not some other values. You don't know if they can even have any other value.
If they can, you don't know what the probabilities of the range distribution is.
You don't know if there is just this universe or several dozen or an infinite number.

Nothing about your conclusions is supported by the data.

How is a conclusion supported? Can you explain?

I don't care what scientists believe

Obviously, and I don't either. I care about evidence and the evidence supports my conclusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is the point of believing something if you can't prove it or if there is no evidence, it's as meaningful as believing in fairies and just as productive.

The evidence is the fine tuning. That is confirmation of what I believe. See how that works.

 

[Veera Chase]

Obviously, and I don't either. I care about evidence and the evidence supports my conclusion.

For crying out load what evidence?

 

[Veera Chase]

The evidence is the fine tuning. That is confirmation of what I believe. See how that works.

There are trees so you believe in trees, yes I see how that works.

 

[Veera Chase]

The evidence is the fine tuning. That is confirmation of what I believe. See how that works.

I asked before but did not get an answer, who did the fine tuning and for whom was it done?

 

[bhsmte]

The point is that even your own references say that your claims about the unlikelihood of our universe developing as it has are unfounded.

I guess that slipped by somehow.

 

[bhsmte]

Major league projection folks. Off the charts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For crying out load what evidence?

Fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I asked before but did not get an answer, who did the fine tuning and for whom was it done?

Read the op.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are trees so you believe in trees, yes I see how that works.

Straw anyone?

 

[Veera Chase]

Straw anyone?

The usual anyone?

Oncedeceived, You have nothing so you have nothing to give.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Major league projection folks. Off the charts.

Do you ever tire of this type of tactic? Seriously. You never get involved in actual conversation, you just sit on the sidelines and make these annoying remarks. You are a hit and run one liner and are only good to cause discord. Give us all a break and keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The usual anyone?

Oncedeceived, You have nothing so you have nothing to give.

You give nothing but ad hominem remarks, got anything else?