The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

Not Mockery! This is as Much Sense as you're making - I'm glad you see this. Now, I don't understand how you think that everything you've done in this Entire thread is somehow different?

Because cosmology is impressive sounding stuff that most laypeople don't understand. There's way more room to hide a god in those gaps of understanding compared to something more straightforward like geology.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Because cosmology is impressive sounding stuff that most laypeople don't understand. There's way more room to hide a god in those gaps of understanding compared to something more straightforward like geology.

I can totally stretch this out just using Once's methods used in this thread alone... I fear she won't play though.

 

[KCfromNC]

I can totally stretch this out just using Once's methods used in this thread alone... I fear she won't play though.

Nope. The only valid science is quote-mines from scientists which make it look like they agree with her argument for god. Which requires a bit of, ahem, compartmentalization (to be kind) when citing atheist scientists.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Nope. The only valid science is quote-mines from scientists which make it look like they agree with her argument for god. Which requires a bit of, ahem, compartmentalization (to be kind) when citing atheist scientists.

Well that being the case, I can plausibly imagine why she thinks that completely Atheistic Scientists also believe a Supreme Being created this fine-tuned universe... as oxymoronic as it seems for everyone else.

 

[Davian]

No, it is amazing to me that there is evidence of design all over the place and you and others claim it is an illusion. What evidence do you have it is just an illusion?

Not illusion, but perception.

The burden lies with you to demonstrate that it is more than your perception. I don't see it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you're actively avoiding posting an answer to my physics question I'm not sure how your objection is relevant.

And that's assuming that you had any standing to question my physics background, which you don't. Where did you get your degree from?



You'd know differently if you actually read it :


Come on, at least try and read things before deciding they must be wrong.

If you'd have read it, you'd know my point wasn't that Bayesian analysis doesn't work, but that it requires careful attention to the probability distributions used. Since you haven't presented any I can't say you aren't being careful - you're not really being anything but evasive I guess. Given that, this whole tangent seems to be yet another attempt not to answer my recent questions.

Read on:

As several discussants have noted, the objections to Bayesian methods in my original article were not entirely sincere. Or, to put it another way, these are sincere objections that I have thought through and, I believe, have largely been resolved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not Mockery! This is as Much Sense as you're making - I'm glad you see this. Now, I don't understand how you think that everything you've done in this Entire thread is somehow different?

Make your claim. Are you claiming that the evidence of fine tuning is false? Are you claiming that they are the same as this poor mockery attempt? What is your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because cosmology is impressive sounding stuff that most laypeople don't understand. There's way more room to hide a god in those gaps of understanding compared to something more straightforward like geology.

Its not God of the Gaps. It is an argument of what we know what we don't. The fine tuning is real. It is scientifically determined.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well that being the case, I can plausibly imagine why she thinks that completely Atheistic Scientists also believe a Supreme Being created this fine-tuned universe... as oxymoronic as it seems for everyone else.

That is a straw man. I've never claimed that the atheistic scientists believe in a Supreme Being. I like the way you show your reverence to them by capitalizing atheistic scientists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. The only valid science is quote-mines from scientists which make it look like they agree with her argument for god. Which requires a bit of, ahem, compartmentalization (to be kind) when citing atheist scientists.

Straw man. I never said that atheistic scientists agree that God is the explanation and in fact, made it clear they did not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I corrected you.

Do you know that God doesn't exist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey look, equivocation. Fine tuning, the observation in the scientific papers you presented isn't the fine tuning argument for Jesus that you've been trying to make here.

Anyway, feel free to try and make an argument that fine tuning requires gods without mentioning that our particular universe is unlikely. I doubt you'll have much luck.

I don't say the universe is unlikely, scientists do.

You are trying so hard to eliminate the unlikely connotation but it is the scientists that have determined that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you're actively avoiding posting an answer to my physics question I'm not sure how your objection is relevant.

And that's assuming that you had any standing to question my physics background, which you don't. Where did you get your degree from?



You'd know differently if you actually read it :


Come on, at least try and read things before deciding they must be wrong.

If you'd have read it, you'd know my point wasn't that Bayesian analysis doesn't work, but that it requires careful attention to the probability distributions used. Since you haven't presented any I can't say you aren't being careful - you're not really being anything but evasive I guess. Given that, this whole tangent seems to be yet another attempt not to answer my recent questions.

I did. You must have missed it. Or ignored it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. Still waiting for your - or any - number for how unlikely our particular set of constants is and how you know it is correct.



Which claim of mine do you feel is unsupported? Please be specific.

What have you provided in terms of support? Now 1 and it was just a statistician pretending to be an objector Bayesian Probability.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Make your claim. Are you claiming that the evidence of fine tuning is false? Are you claiming that they are the same as this poor mockery attempt? What is your point?

Not claiming any such thing. I don't accept your assertion that some sentient being dialed it in. Fine tuning could well be happenstance (we're here in this once in a gunzillion-zillion universes that could support life), or it could be that there's no other possible values this universe could have in being as it is. Both of these are easily more plausible scientifically than Universe creating Pixies (or similar) were twiddling fine-tuned variables at the start of all this...

Besides, if we have to go with the extra layer, let's go with Magic Pink Unicorns! Wouldn't that be nicer? They don't send tribes to War, nor do they go on genocidal rampages, etc.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Make your claim. Are you claiming that the evidence of fine tuning is false? Are you claiming that they are the same as this poor mockery attempt? What is your point?

... and Yes, I Do think your claim that fine-tuned universes for life are exactly the same as my exactly accurate Ohio River intelligently following the border of several states example. What is different?

My Scientist clearly stated the river intelligently follows the state border, just like your scientists state the universe is fine-tuned for life because of a Deity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not in your time zone. It's 1am here. Only reason I'm on now is insomnia. But if you need me to spell out the hypocrisy of telling other people to read links you yourself haven't read, then sure, consider the hypocrisy pointed out.

I didn't say anything about the links, you responded to a post (which means you were on then) and didn't respond to the one I posted to you.

I agree that posting a link that I didn't read was not a good thing, but I knew from other recommendations that it was a good one for the fine tuning of the universe. So yes, I should have taken the time to read it myself. But I knew enough about the authors and their stance so there was nothing that I wasn't actually aware of conceptually.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not claiming any such thing. I don't accept your assertion that some sentient being dialed it in. Fine tuning could well be happenstance (we're here in this once in a gunzillion-zillion universes that could support life), or it could be that there's no other possible values this universe could have in being as it is. Both of these are easily more plausible scientifically than Universe creating Pixies (or similar) were twiddling fine-tuned variables at the start of all this...

Besides, if we have to go with the extra layer, let's go with Magic Pink Unicorns! Wouldn't that be nicer? They don't send tribes to War, nor do they go on genocidal rampages, etc.

Well then fine, you don't believe that an Intelligent Being was behind the fine tuning. You believe that fine tuning could be could just be a happenstance or the constants couldn't be anything other than what they are. So argue your point rather than mock mine. It doesn't make you reasonable and rational when you don't provide reason for your belief.

 

[Oncedeceived]

... and Yes, I Do think your claim that fine-tuned universes for life are exactly the same as my exactly accurate Ohio River intelligently following the border of several states example. What is different?

My Scientist clearly stated the river intelligently follows the state border, just like your scientists state the universe is fine-tuned for life because of a Deity.

The point isn't the wording of what a scientist uses, it is the data in which they speak.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agreed that if the universe was formed by randomly selecting the values for the constants, each one from a huge range if possible values, then each combination could be considered unlikely. The problem is that we don't know how universes are formed, we don't know what values the constants can take, we don't know how many of them are interdependent etc.
Now if we were looking around on earth and see all this evolution happening and are able to figure out how long that takes we, without any knowledge of what the universe looks like, would predict a very old universe and a very large universe as being required for life to arise naturally.
If on the other hand we existed in a world where we believe the Genesis story and believe that God can just create things instantly out of nothing, can create complex life forms without any need for the iteration of evolution or the time evolution would require, we have no reason to hypothesize that the universe would be old and large and almost exclusively hostile to life ad we know it.

Yes, and ours is precisely the right size and old enough for life to exist, so if it arises so naturally why do we not see the universe teeming with life? Where is the life in this life permitting universe which has the exactly right combinations of values so that we as intelligent beings are present?

This is exact my point. Your scriptures describe god doing super obvious things and it not affecting people's beliefs, therefore your defense that God would make the universe the kind that could allow life to arise naturally so that people wouldn't be forced to believe is undermined by your own theology.

My theology claims that God did create the universe and us being able to comprehend it. That is very much in the theology. So whether or not you believe in choice being part of the theology, it is very explicit that a discernible universe and intelligent beings comprehending it are in the theology.

As far as I am aware, if the values can be varied and if they were all set in a random process the multiverse or mega verse are the best models we currently have. They are not demonstrably true, nor are those initial hypotheticals established, so the simple answer is, I don't know.

So if you do not believe that the other options are established and that you don't know, why is it that you still think there is no intelligence behind it all?

Interesting so what else makes the fine tuning special, aside from its life permitting values?

The fact that it exists at all, that there is life at all.