The fine tuning of the universe.

[AirPo]

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.

A flawed argument is confirmation that God exists?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.



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




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.



View attachment 176680


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



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





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




Who are you trying to fool here?



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?



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



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



Ok. WHY?

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



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



Because it is rooted in ignorance and uses unsupported premises.



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



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.

This post has two common themes:
1. That we don't know why the fine tuning exists.
2. I am wrong to think God is behind it.

If we don't know why the fine tuning exists and there is no natural reason that we know of why do discount God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

A flawed argument is confirmation that God exists?

What is flawed? Explain.

 

[KCfromNC]

The majority of scientists are not as gullible as you are I guess.

Hey look, a personal attack instead of an actual response. Please, don't take out your frustration about being unable to support your faith on me. I'm just the messenger here.

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.

Didn't you just say that the quote from Penrose showed that the probability of the universe ending up this way was 1? So it looks like even your supposed experts disagree that it was unlikely. But sure, I'm the gullible one.

Who exactly are you trying to convince here?

I gave you a link where Luke Barnes has his calculations http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647.

What is the answer he calcualted? Did he also come up with 1? Do you even know?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I never once claimed that I could use certain methods, that is simply not true. I've given you links and examples of those who do.

 

[AirPo]

What is flawed? Explain.

Fine tuning. Does it really need to be explained yet again?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey look, a personal attack instead of an actual response. Please, don't take out your frustration about being unable to support your faith on me. I'm just the messenger here.

This is rather ironic I think.

Didn't you just say that the quote from Penrose showed that the probability of the universe ending up this way was 1? So it looks like even your supposed experts disagree that it was unlikely. But sure, I'm the gullible one.

Who exactly are you trying to convince here?

What???????

What is the answer he calcualted? Did he also come up with 1? Do you even know?

Seriously? He is saying how improbable chance is and you are denying what he actually is saying.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

If the fine tuning argument didn't convince you your god(s) exist, why are you wasting time thinking it will convince anyone else?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fine tuning. Does it really need to be explained yet again?

I guess it does. Explain how it is flawed, how all those scientists are wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

This post has two common themes:
1. That we don't know why the fine tuning exists.
2. I am wrong to think God is behind it.

If we don't know why the fine tuning exists and there is no natural reason that we know of why do discount God?

Because no one has presented anything that explains what it even means to say that god(s) are involved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If the fine tuning argument didn't convince you your god(s) exist, why are you wasting time thinking it will convince anyone else?

I already knew God exists, and there is plenty of evidence that supports His existence and fine tuning is one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because no one has presented anything that explains what it even means to say that god(s) are involved.

I never claimed they did.

 

[AirPo]

I guess it does. Explain how it is flawed, how all those scientists are wrong.

The scientist aren't wrong, they also know the fine tuning argument is flawed.

Let's start at the beginning.

Unsupported assumption 1, the constants can be changed/different. Since this is an unknown, basing an argument on it is flawed.

 

[KCfromNC]

I never once claimed that I could use certain methods, that is simply not true. I've given you links and examples of those who do.

Yes, I was talking about Bayesian probability and in doing so we use those precise measurements of our universe. WE USE what we KNOW in doing so. That was the point. We don't just do it in fine tuning but in all areas of physics.

Bolding mine.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is rather ironic I think.

That conclusion doesn't fit the evidence.

What???????

If you're actually interested in communicating, you'll have to be more specific.

Seriously? He is saying how improbable chance is and you are denying what he actually is saying.

I guess this means that no, you don't know what probability he supposedly calculated.

 

[KCfromNC]

I already knew God exists, and there is plenty of evidence that supports His existence and fine tuning is one.

The problem is when you present really bad arguments you can't back up such as this one, and then go on to say that you have lots more similar evidence, you're just giving people more reason to ignore all of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

And they and you are wrong. It is from what we know.

 

[KCfromNC]

I never claimed they did.

You can't really blame people for ignoring things which don't actually exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The problem is when you present really bad arguments you can't back up such as this one, and then go on to say that you have lots more similar evidence, you're just giving people more reason to ignore all of it.

This is so sad. There are plenty of atheistic scientists out there that are not afraid to acknowledge this argument, even Hitchens said it was a good argument but not you....no you KNOW better than everyone.

 

[KCfromNC]

And they and you are wrong. It is from what we know.

Who is "we" and what is it that they supposedly know? Are you going back to pretending you know that the particular set of constants we find are unlikely - right after admitting that even if they weren't you'd still believe it would point to your particular god(s)?