Ok, fair enough. You need some evidence that is sufficient enough to convince you that there is a God. But if you deny any and all evidence from the get go how would you ever feel there is even any evidence?
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.
The fine tuning of the universe.
- Thread starter Oncedeceived
- Start date
Ok. Please go back and bring up what you are talking about and which article because like I said, I have right now eleven notifications and yesterday I had over thirty.
Upvote
0
It may seem that way to you because you are thinking I can't know what I am talking about because I believe in God but that is not the case. I've spent literally years researching this topic. There are PhD's in the fields that have been educated in these areas that while not agreeing that there is a fine tuner believe that believing in a fine turner is a valid argument. Some in fact have gone from atheism to Christianity for this very reason.
Upvote
0
That is up to the person who really wants to know DH. I know of one scientist that after discovering all this fine tuning recognized there was Intelligence behind it all. He didn't immediately come to the conclusion that it was the Biblical God but eventually that conclusion was reached through various avenues.
Upvote
0
Why would you need to know the origins? Explain.
They are measured. They have a value because it is their value. How do you think physicists get their equations?
They are what they are which is the point. That is how scientists have sent men to the moon and put up expeditions for space exploration. This isn't a guessing game DH. It is theoretical physics and it works very well, so well that we did understand the distances and dynamics enough to send men to the moon.
Fine tuning doesn't go away even with trillions of trials.
Yes, it is.
We do know for instance like the nuclear force, we know exactly what it has to be for the universe to stay together and what would happen if it were smaller or larger by very small increments.
We can hypothesize just like in any realm of science. It is not nonsensical guesses but very educated presumptions based on WHAT WE KNOW, not what we don't know.
And everyone is wrong, and it is not me that makes them wrong but the scientists in the field that makes them wrong. You can claim I am wrong about God all day long and that the majority of scientists would agree but these arguments against fine tuning are wrong and they would tell you so themselves.
I am not making the claims DH, the scientists are. If you are speaking to my conclusions that there is a fine tuner then that is a different thing.
Upvote
0
Look, I was the one that said I didn't read that paper. If you want to continue to focus on that then go right ahead but I am done discussing it. If you would like to argue about the actual issue then fine.
Upvote
0
You didn't read the whole thing did you?
It is showing how the parameters are used in discovering things about our universe and how that works and how they can be tweaked in the same way. I was using this to show precision in cosmological parameters and how that works scientifically.
Upvote
0
Veera Chase
Active Member
I do not deny evidence how could I possibly deny evidence, show me some evidence and I will believe, what you are calling evidence is not evidence, you think it is because you want to believe and you will accept anything that points to what you want to believe no matter how tenuous it might be.
You deny Islam yet over a billion people will tell you they have evidence that it's true, why don't you accept their evidence? because you are not open to believing what they believe that's why, you have exactly the same evidence as they do..... none.
Faith is obviously not enough for you to keep believing because you obviously need to have evidence just as I do, but because you 'Want' to believe you have allowed your standards of evidence to go through the floor, it seems your evidence standards would be higher if you were buying a car than they are for believing in your God.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The actual issue is that you still can't produce anything to back up your claims that you - or someone at least - has any idea what the odds are that our universe would end up the way it did. Until you do that all you've show is that some people say that things would be different if they were different. But until we know if they could have been any different, and if so how different they could have been, there's simply nothing to this.
Pretending that I haven't been asking for this for pages and pages now doesn't make it any less real.
Upvote
0
There are very good reasons why I don't believe in Islam. It is not the same reason you don't believe in Islam. You don't believe in any religion outright.
Upvote
0
Now you know that is not what I meant.
I was talking specifically about one but even Anthony Flew after discovering fine tuning in the universe was convinced and he was a very vocal atheist for a long time. There are others as well.
Upvote
0
I've supplied numerous examples of scientists who claim it is highly unlikely and improbable that the universe is as it is due to chance or by accident.
Upvote
0
2.2. Parameter choices 2.2.1. Base parameters The first section of Table 1 lists our base parameters that have flat priors when they are varied, along with their default values in the baseline model. When parameters are varied, unless otherwise stated, prior ranges are chosen to be much larger than the posterior, and hence do not affect the results of parameter estimation. In addition to these priors, we impose a “hard” prior on the Hubble constant of [20, 100] km s−1 Mpc−1 . 2.2.2. Derived parameters Matter-radiation equality zeq is defined as the redshift at which ργ + ρν = ρc + ρb (where ρν approximates massive neutrinos as massless). The redshift of last-scattering, z∗, is defined so that the optical depth to Thomson scattering from z = 0 (conformal time η = η0) to z = z∗ is unity, assuming no reionization. The optical depth is given by τ(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 , (5) where ˙τ = −aneσT (and ne is the density of free electrons and σT is the Thomson cross section). We define the angular scale of the sound horizon at last-scattering, θ∗ = rs(z∗)/DA(z∗), where rs is the sound horizon rs(z) = Z η(z) 0 dη 0 √ 3(1 + R) , (6) with R ≡ 3ρb/(4ργ). Baryon velocities decouple from the photon dipole when Compton drag balances the gravitational force, which happens at τd ∼ 1, where (Hu & Sugiyama 1996) τd(η) ≡ Z η η0 τ˙ dη 0 /R. (7) Here, again, τ is from recombination only, without reionization contributions. We define a drag redshift zdrag, so that τd(η(zdrag)) = 1. The sound horizon at the drag epoch is an important scale that is often used in studies of baryon acoustic oscillations; we denote this as rdrag = rs(zdrag). We compute zdrag and rdrag numerically from camb (see Sect. 5.2 for details of application to BAO data).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
