• 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.

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Tell me what it would mean if they couldn't be different.

That no matter how a universe originates, that universe would look and work like our own.

Tell me what it would mean if they could.

We would have to try and find out how the values are determined before being able to explain why these values and not some other values.

That explanation could be any number of things.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Having appraised the evidence I am right to say that there is no evidence that Gods exist, I'm glad we cleared that up.

I'm done because this is nothing but an exercise in futility, it's like arguing with someone who swears they are Napoleon.
But others have evidence and have appraised the evidence and are right to say there is evidence that God exists.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
We don't need to know the origin to understand what gravity does and what would happen if it wasn't what it is.

But we can't make any claims about why gravity is what it is or why it is even there in the first place.

How it works and why it works the way it works are two different questions.


Oh, of course....they are just speculating not asserting. How is this entirely different?

You don't know the difference between speculation and assertion?

No wonder you have such a hard time grasping your reasoning errors.

How many times in a scientific study do we bring in the possibility of unknowns as stopping our conclusions?

Here's the thing... you are not providing a scientific hypothesis. Instead, you are providing a religious belief.

"the tuner/god dun it" is not a scientific claim. It's a religious assertion.

We can not know if there are other universes. So how are other universes any better in explanation than God?

You must be confusing me with someone who claims there are other universes, in order to ask this question.

Having said that, multi-verse ideas are more likely then god-ideas, for the simple reason that at least one universe demonstrably exists. Not a single god demonstrably exists.

For that reason alone, assuming other universes might exist is a far more reasonable assumption as opposed to assuming gods exist.


Also, how do other universes eliminate fine tuning?

This assumes that there is something that even requires "elimination" in the first place. You haven't shown that this is the case. Nobody needs to "eliminate" baseless religious claim in science.

But scientists have shown the values are improbable.

You keep claiming this, but it is just not true.

There are books written about how improbable scientist find the universe having the values we have.
Scientists sharing their opinions is not the same as scientists demonstrating things.

Btw, there are also books written about how no designers are required for a universe like our own.
Krauss' "A universe from nothing" and Hawking's "The Grand Design" come to mind. But you have allready shown in the past how you handwave away "authorities" that don't seem to agree with your a priori beliefs.


If this issue was refuted, then present it.

Already done that, ad nauseum. And again in the very post you are replying to. You even acknowledge my exact point by saying that if one has only a green apple as data, one cannot assume that apples can be purple as well. You agree that that doesn't make any sense.

By extension, claiming that universes could have different values is equally nonsensical. Seeing as how our sample of universes equals exactly ONE.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
It does show signs of design, that is why the term fine tuning was chosen for the label of the phenomena. It appears that the 30 parameters that must be precisely what they are were set to be that way.

There is no way to assess that without knowing how universes come into being and without actually knowing if the constants could even have a different value in the first place.

See above.

You didn't list any aspects. You just claimed "it looks as if they were set that way". Please, provide this list of aspects.


I have provided two arguments using scientist's arguments. The first is for the fine tuning of the universe. The consensus is that fine tuning is real. I argued with quotes from Einstein to counter your remark that he was an atheist. So what exactly have I cherry picked other than what I just retracted.

You cherry pick every time you quote a scientist's opinion you feel supports your case, while handwaving away every other scientist's opinion you feel doesn't support your case.

I say "opinion", because not a single one of these opinions are validated by objective data.

If the values couldn't have been different that makes the design even more convincing. If the universe could not have been different it would be even more fine tuned.

upload_2016-6-22_16-35-22.png



Another case of "I'm right, even when I'm wrong!!!!!"

So? What if there were infinite mounts of universe with the same or different values? How would that eliminate the fine tuning?

You don't know what infinity means for probability figures?


1. Makes it more fine tuned.
2. No scientist believes the parameters happened by sheer coincidence.
3. There is no reason why this configuration is more likely then others we don't have others to show that.


Indeed. We don't have others to show that.
With a set of exactly one, any claims about probability is entirely meaningless.

First of all, I have said very little about a fine tuner so claiming I've gone on and on is a straw man.


Who are you trying to fool here?

Secondly, my "religion" doesn't require anything but to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior.

So, in your religion, the notion that your god had nothing to do with the origins of the universe, would be perfectly acceptable?

Again, who are you trying to fool?

Lastly, it is because of evidence that is the whole point and the fact that you deny any evidence supporting a fine tuner out right shows your anti-religious dogma very clearly.

There currently is no evidence that suggests how universes and their laws and constants come into being.

Right, one explanation...one God vs. infinite universes. I think the one God fits best with Occam's razor.

First, false dichotomy.
Second, you should read up on what Occam's razor is about.

I would agree that it is most likely a human did it, it may have been a cat or a dog if one is in the house. But that is a reasonable assumption.

Ok. WHY?

WHY is a human a more reasonable option as opposed to an extra-dimensional alien?

If you went to the beach and found pebbles in small piles spelling out "peace on earth" would you think that they just happened there by chance or would you assume some intelligent being spelled it out?

I would assume it was done by an english speaking human.
Because I know what english is. I have precedents.

How is it a fallacious argument?

Because it is rooted in ignorance and uses unsupported premises.

Why do you feel they are free from bias when they have made it very clear they are atheists? Do you believe that they would not want to have science eliminate God from being an option?

I'm only mentioning them to make a point about your cherry picking arguments from authority.

No, you haven't explained why I'm wrong. You have asserted I'm wrong.

I've made post after post, using analogy after analogy to show and explain to you where you are wrong in your reasoning. Everybody can read it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Veera Chase

Active Member
Jun 15, 2016
221
72
38
UK
✟742.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've made post after post, using analogy after analogy to show and explain to you where you are wrong in your reasoning. Everybody can read it.
It's called flogging a dead horse, all you will succeed in doing is making yourself tired.
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
42
✟46,986.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
How does the universe create life by chance? Please provide the evidence that shows this is the kind of universe that creates life by chance.
For it to be possible for life to occur by chance you need a very old universe (to that there is lots of time for opportunities for life), you need a massive universe to contain many galaxies (again for more chances, as well as to mitigate the attrition as galaxies swallow each other) you need a dynamic universe where supernovae happen to create various elements etc. None of those are a requirement for God. Saying the universe looks designed is like saying it is an immense Rube Goldberg machine that ends in human life. The universe we observe is the only kind that makes life by chance possible and is therfore uniquely unsuited to providing evidence that a god did it.

IF the universe didn't looked designed this conversation would not be happening. In fact, if the universe didn't look designed the label of fine tuning would not have been chosen for the phenomena. Scientists would not have to ponder why the universe appears designed. So to claim the universe doesn't appear designed is based not on the actual way the universe appears but denying that it appears that way.
denying that the universe appears designed is dependant on what criteria you include for design. You want to say that it's immense complexity makes it look designed. I think it's complexity makes it look like the product of chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
For it to be possible for life to occur by chance you need a very old universe (to that there is lots of time for opportunities for life), you need a massive universe to contain many galaxies (again for more chances, as well as to mitigate the attrition as galaxies swallow each other) you need a dynamic universe where supernovae happen to create various elements etc. None of those are a requirement for God. Saying the universe looks designed is like saying it is an immense Rube Goldberg machine that ends in human life. The universe we observe is the only kind that makes life by chance possible and is therfore uniquely unsuited to providing evidence that a god did it.
You are begging the question. Not only that you are asserting that God wouldn't create the universe the way it is created. You are asserting without evidence that life could come about by chance.

denying that the universe appears designed is dependant on what criteria you include for design. You want to say that it's immense complexity makes it look designed. I think it's complexity makes it look like the product of chance.
Ok fair enough, explain how order and natural laws come from chance.
 
Upvote 0

Athée

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2015
1,443
256
42
✟46,986.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
You are begging the question
I don't see how. I am not asserting that it did happen by chance, only that the universe that we observe is the kind of universe needed for it to happen by chance.

Not only that you are asserting that God wouldn't create the universe the way it is created
This is true to an extent. I am not saying that God couldn't create it this way or that there is something about the incredibly vague god concept that would prohibit it being created this way. Just that in my opinion if the intent was to have this universe be a sign pointing to him, then it doesn't work as well as other possible universes.

You are asserting without evidence that life could come about by chance.
Miller-Urey comes to mind. It doesn't demonstrate how life on earth began but does show proof of concept.

Ok fair enough, explain how order and natural laws come from chance.
Is this a trick question....natural laws come from chance by.....chance.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Keep in mind that she is arguing from an unfalsifiable position. There isn't anything that will show her to be wrong.

Indeed.

It's quite amazing actually.
I gave her an analogy about having only access to a green apple and then she herself responded by saying that if one only has access to a single green apple, that it would nonsensical to assume that purple apples can exist.

And in the next breath, she thinks it is sensical to assume a universe with different constants can exist.

It idd seems to be damaged beyond repair.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What haven't I been able to substantiate?

Your claim that the particular set of constants this universe ended up with is an unlikely outcome. I've asked repeatedly for you to provide the odds that our universe ended up like it did. Are you not reading my posts before replying?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
And neither is there any reason to think they could. The point exactly.

It is unknown.
Too bad no one pointed out that apologetics based on fine tuning are just an argument from ignorance. If only someone jumped in at, say, post 6 for example this whole thread would have been avoided.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't see how. I am not asserting that it did happen by chance, only that the universe that we observe is the kind of universe needed for it to happen by chance.
You are asserting that life could happen by chance, which couldn't happen if not for the precise values we are discussing.


This is true to an extent. I am not saying that God couldn't create it this way or that there is something about the incredibly vague god concept that would prohibit it being created this way. Just that in my opinion if the intent was to have this universe be a sign pointing to him, then it doesn't work as well as other possible universes.
Again, it is if God wanted to have a choice of what to believe. If God put us on a planet without any other explanation it isn't a choice it is necessary to believe in Him.


Miller-Urey comes to mind. It doesn't demonstrate how life on earth began but does show proof of concept.
Which would be futile if not for the fine tuning concerning the life permitting values of the universe. Without the order and the chemistry being what it is there would not be life at all, and of course the majority of scientists don't believe it could have happened like this by chance.


Is this a trick question....natural laws come from chance by.....chance.
You are claiming that not only are the values of precisely set parameters of 30 related and independent values and the laws of physics all just "look" like they are all just by chance?
 
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,363
7,214
61
✟176,857.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You are asserting that life could happen by chance, which couldn't happen if not for the precise values we are discussing.
"If it wasn't the way it is, it couldn't be the way it is." is kind of a pointless argument.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If the values couldn't have been different that makes the design even more convincing.

You know god exists because it is incredibly unlikely the universe could have been formed this way without a god. And if we learn it was inevitable that the universe could have been formed this way without a god, that's even more evidence that god must exist? Come on, pick one side or the other.

This is why this whole approach is totally unconvincing.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟545,630.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No this was a response to you asking for MY WORK.

You said that you could use certain methods to calculate the odds in response to my question for what the odds were. Backtrack all you want. Anything to avoid actually admitting you don't have an answer, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your claim that the particular set of constants this universe ended up with is an unlikely outcome. I've asked repeatedly for you to provide the odds that our universe ended up like it did. Are you not reading my posts before replying?
The majority of scientists are not as gullible as you are I guess. I've provided comments by the top scientists in the field that claim it is highly unlikely for the universe to be like this just by chance. I gave you equations by Roger Penrose. I gave you a link where Luke Barnes has his calculations http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647. You are ignoring what I've given you and then make accusations that I am not giving you what you ask for.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You know god exists because it is incredibly unlikely the universe could have been formed this way without a god. And if we learn it was inevitable that the universe could have been formed this way without a god, that's even more evidence that god must exist? Come on, pick one side or the other.

This is why this whole approach is totally unconvincing.
You misunderstand how people know God exists. I don't know that God exists because of the fine tuning, I know God exists and the fine tuning is more confirmation.
 
Upvote 0