The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

Science would be no where if that is what everyone believed.

Science seems to do fine without assuming that gods are needed to explain coincidences, so I'm not sure what your objection might be.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, its probably true that a universe doesn't need to have life in it. Of course, in such a universe, nobody will notice that it exists. So among those who actually survey the universe they exist in, every one of them will find a universe that is compatible with life.

Yep, wherever I go there I am. What are the odds?

That being said, finding life in a universe unable to support it naturally would be an interesting argument for the supernatural. But since we don't observe that here in reality, the fact we're here doesn't really tell us much one way or the other.

 

[AirPo]

So again, you are denying what scientists claim about fine tuning.

Nope, you just misunderstand it.

 

[AirPo]

Right, and all those PhD Physicists, cosmologists and astrophysicists are just whistling dixie.

No, your interpretation of what they are saying is just whistling dixie.

 

[AirPo]

You deny what the scientists in their field claim and then claim this is over my head. I think I'll take the word of the scientists over KC thanks.

I'll go with the scientists on this. Thanks.

But the fine tuning argument is not the scientists go with.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Seems pretty clear to me that this is saying that guesses about the odds of our universe being as it is are simply that. But then again I've actually read the paper so what I do I know?

This isn't from the paper I didn't read. This is from an article that isn't even a scientific paper with a scientist as an author. Edited to add: not a scientist as an author.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-does-our-universe-appear-specially-made-for-us

 

[Oncedeceived]

Kinda goes against the whole "I know enough about the authors to correctly guess the contents of everything they've every written" claim, huh?

Especially when you aren't providing information from the actual paper I linked.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science would be no where if that is what everyone believed.

You have a right to your opinion but that is all you have.

IMHO, science would be nowhere if we presupposed answers before we had sufficient evidence.

If you need to believe in "fine tuners," go right ahead. I'm just not sure why you're so hellbent on trying to convince everyone else they need to accept this too? All myself, and every other poster in this thread have attempted to demonstrate, is your flawed assumptions and special pleading. If you choose to ignore this, that's on you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your blinkers will not allow you to see it in any way other than the way you want to see it.
You start with the assumption that there is a God and end by proving to yourself that there is a God,
it's like a lesson in 'How to fool yourself without even trying'.

I could say the same. You start with the assumption that there is no God and nothing will change your view.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If this is actually true, it makes me wonder why you didn't just post the better, more up to date work that you actually have read. If this is actually true.

It was a paper recommended as an early paper for fine tuning by many of the later papers actually. It is referenced quite a lot.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yawn. If you had anything of substance to answer with you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling. Or you'd at least be able to point out some of this rampant ad hominem you're imagining.

Name calling? Where in the world did that come from? When you point at me rather than my argument that is ad hominem.

Speaking of empty assertions, though, have you had any luck finding a paper which shows how to calculate the probability distributions of universal constants when universes are formed? I could have sworn you were working on finding something, anything, to show that their current state is unlikely. You posted a few papers you no longer seem to want to discuss so I'm wondering if you've managed to find anything better.

No, I was not finding anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yawn. If you had anything of substance to answer with you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling. Or you'd at least be able to point out some of this rampant ad hominem you're imagining.

Speaking of empty assertions, though, have you had any luck finding a paper which shows how to calculate the probability distributions of universal constants when universes are formed? I could have sworn you were working on finding something, anything, to show that their current state is unlikely. You posted a few papers you no longer seem to want to discuss so I'm wondering if you've managed to find anything better.

I will comment on any of them, I can't specifically comment on something in particular from the paper I didn't read obviously but you can copy and paste if you have something to bring in from that one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

IMHO, science would be nowhere if we presupposed answers before we had sufficient evidence.

It might not be sufficient evidence for you but it is for many many people. Many of them who work in the field.

If you need to believe in "fine tuners," go right ahead. I'm just not sure why you're so hellbent on trying to convince everyone else they need to accept this too? All myself, and every other poster in this thread have attempted to demonstrate, is your flawed assumptions and special pleading. If you choose to ignore this, that's on you.

The point of the thread was to provide reasons that theism is a better explanation than an atheistic naturalistic explanation. We haven't even got that far, but when the OP states that is the purpose why would you be surprised by that direction?

 

[HitchSlap]

I could say the same. You start with the assumption that there is no God and nothing will change your view.

Then you don't understand how science works.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In what way?

What does irony mean?

Nah, not being able to answer simple questions about the contents of the papers you link to is also a pretty good clue.

If you want to focus on the ONE paper I haven't read that is probably what you will see.

be far ahead of someone who admittedly is just guessing at the actual contents of the article.

Rolling my eyes. lol

 

[Oncedeceived]

There's no reason to be believe it needs to be fine tuned period. Nothing you've posted says that life must necessarily be an inevitable outcome. What's your point?

Right, there is no reason for necessity to be the explanation for fine tuning and THAT is why fine tuning is so surprising. Life could not be an inevitable outcome if not for fine tuning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, your interpretation of what they are saying is just whistling dixie.

It is not that I am interpreting what they are saying incorrectly and have in fact in numerous posts have made it clear that the majority of scientists do not claim that the supernatural is behind the fine tuning; however, they do understand that they need to explain it in a naturalistic way and the best they can come up with is the multiverse or something like it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But the fine tuning argument is not the scientists go with.

They go with the exact same fine tuning that I do. They don't explain it the same. Please understand the difference.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you don't understand how science works.

I do understand how science works.

 

[HitchSlap]

It might not be sufficient evidence for you but it is for many many people. Many of them who work in the field.

Right, which automatically makes it true.

The point of the thread was to provide reasons that theism is a better explanation than an atheistic naturalistic explanation.

I'm not debating the fact that ancient stories sometimes seem reasonable on the surface. However, every single time science makes significant advancements, and our understanding grows, it's always a naturalistic explanation. And the god of-the-gaps becomes less and less reasonable.

We haven't even got that far, but when the OP states that is the purpose why would you be surprised by that direction?

I shouldn't be surprised, I just sometimes forget how vigorously unreasonable beliefs are defended against all reason.