The fine tuning of the universe.

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't say that if they weren't I'd still believe they would point to God. That is ridiculous.

*AHUM*

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nice attempt to jump from "some people think this" to "everyone but you thinks something". Or maybe I should just call it sad and add some frowny faces. That'll be sure to quiet the doubts.

Anyway, where do you get the idea that I'm afraid to address the argument from my multiple attempts at getting you to back up your claims related to it? Straw man much?

Back what claims for crying out loud?

 

[Oncedeceived]

*AHUM*

Seriously? If they couldn't be different they would still be fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As it's been pointed out already, fine tuning is not evidence.

Its been asserted, why is it not evidence?

 

[AirPo]

Why not? That is what I am asking you.

It's a subjective explaination of the observed data.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's a subjective explaination of the observed data.

So are you trying to say that it is not a scientific explanation?

 

[KCfromNC]

Back what claims for crying out loud?

The ones you keep dodging. Have you been reading my posts before responding to them?

 

[AirPo]

So are you trying to say that it is not a scientific explanation?

Do I have to say it yet again? It's a flawed argument.

 

[KCfromNC]

False.

What exactly is false about it? Please be specific.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But fine tuning is evidence.

"fine tuning" in reality doesn't point to anything but "the values are what they are and the universe is the way it is because the values are what they are".

And that's it. The values being what they are, doesn't point in any way to why they are what they are.

I've only explained this like a dozen or so times.

So what you are saying is this: We don't know why the universe is fine tuned but I God is not it because there is no evidence. Yet, fine tuning is evidence that is reasonable and probable with the conclusion that there is a fine tuner. So it isn't asserted without evidence, there is evidence you just a priori dismiss it as such.

Playing with words makes for a very poor argument.
Using strawmen will not work either.

See, this is why people (including scientists) should avoid using such potentially loaded language. Intellectually dishonest people will abuse it.

It's like Ben Stein when he said that Dawkins believes in a "designer" because he speaks about the "design of a human body".

It's ridiculous. You might be able to convince very poorly educated people in this way, but please...

 

[KCfromNC]

What is know is how highly unlikely these came about by chance.

How unlikely is that, exactly? Still waiting for you to come up with a number here - no matter how much you insist you aren't dodging any questions of mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The ones you keep dodging. Have you been reading my posts before responding to them?

I haven't dodged any.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Scientists don't believe in a flat earth nor do Christians.

I said "the flat earth society". Perhaps you should look it up.
It counters the point that a "clearly divinely created universe" wouldn't give people the opportunity to NOT believe in the divine.

Clearly it can. I'ld also think that with the evidence currently out our disposal, nobody in his right mind could still believe the earth is flat. But there you go....

And the majority of scientists in the field do find it surprising whether or not you do.

Please share the survey that demonstrates this bold claim.

 

[KCfromNC]

Its been asserted, why is it not evidence?

If you think that assertions are evidence no wonder you're having such a tough time in this thread. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion.

 

[KCfromNC]

I haven't dodged any.

Already answered in previous posts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How unlikely is that, exactly? Still waiting for you to come up with a number here.

I think others who actually read what is out there from experts in the field understand how unlikely. If you want to claim it isn't unlikely that is your opinion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is know is how highly unlikely these came about by chance. We are determining which explanation best explains the evidence.

When you have a set of exactly ONE and have no knowledge on how that ONE example occurs, any claim about likelyness is by definition nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Stephen Hawking believes fine tuning is real. I am not sure of Krauss.

"Because a force like gravity exists, a creator for the universe is not necessary"
~Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think others who actually read what is out there from experts in the field understand how unlikely.

I wasn't asking what you believe, I was asking for you to support your claim with actual evidence. For some reason you seem very hesitant to just tell us how unlikely you know our particular universe is.

If you want to claim it isn't unlikely that is your opinion.

You've already responded to me saying this whole mess is an argument from ignorance. Not sure what would lead you to feel that I think I (or anyone else) have answers here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"fine tuning" in reality doesn't point to anything but "the values are what they are and the universe is the way it is because the values are what they are".

And that's it. The values being what they are, doesn't point in any way to why they are what they are.

I've only explained this like a dozen or so times.



Playing with words makes for a very poor argument.
Using strawmen will not work either.

See, this is why people (including scientists) should avoid using such potentially loaded language. Intellectually dishonest people will abuse it.

It's like Ben Stein when he said that Dawkins believes in a "designer" because he speaks about the "design of a human body".

It's ridiculous. You might be able to convince very poorly educated people in this way, but please...

"fine tuning" in reality doesn't point to anything but "the values are what they are and the universe is the way it is because the values are what they are".

And that's it. The values being what they are, doesn't point in any way to why they are what they are.

I've only explained this like a dozen or so times.



Playing with words makes for a very poor argument.
Using strawmen will not work either.

See, this is why people (including scientists) should avoid using such potentially loaded language. Intellectually dishonest people will abuse it.

It's like Ben Stein when he said that Dawkins believes in a "designer" because he speaks about the "design of a human body".

It's ridiculous. You might be able to convince very poorly educated people in this way, but please...

So you believe only poorly educated people are the only ones that think the fine tuning argument for God is a good one?