The fine tuning of the universe.

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

I have no argument to make & I don't need an argument. I mock your point (but of course, not you ) because your point is deserving of mockery. If you want to assert that there's a reason that everything is the way it is, then surely you have evidence of this, no? This is the premise behind "peer review". I'm asking you questions and posing problems with it (i.e. mockery (tm) ) which you would then provide the evidence to show why you're justified in your assertion. So far, none. Peoples personal opinions don't count as Science, even if they're world renowned Scientists in their fields, they still need Evidence. You do too.

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

But you're leaping to unfounded conclusions on that data! These Scientists aren't supporting your conclusions on this. Not even the one's you've quote mined here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have no argument to make & I don't need an argument. I mock your point (but of course, not you ) because your point is deserving of mockery. If you want to assert that there's a reason that everything is the way it is, then surely you have evidence of this, no? This is the premise behind "peer review". I'm asking you questions and posing problems with it (i.e. mockery (tm) ) which you would then provide the evidence to show why you're justified in your assertion. So far, none. Peoples personal opinions don't count as Science, even if they're world renowned Scientists in their fields, they still need Evidence. You do too.

You don't need an argument? You are free of defending your point of view? Why is that? What gives you the freedom from providing anything to substantiate your view?

Peer review has provided documentation of the fine tuning of the universe. That is the evidence. It appears as if someone or something has dialed in very precise values for at least 30 parameters that allow the universe 1. to exist and 2. to allow intelligent life to exist. That is what it looks like, someone setting those parameters to where they need to be. That is the evidence. Now is that appearance actual, and intelligence did dial in very precise values for the universe and intelligent life to exist or is it just an illusion? Two choices:
1. Its an illusion created by a multiverse/megaverse or a law of everything that might just have had caused it.
2. It is not an illusion but is actual design.

But you're leaping to unfounded conclusions on that data! These Scientists aren't supporting your conclusions on this. Not even the one's you've quote mined here.

Yes, there are a few that are supporting my conclusions that I have included. I've included atheist scientists, Deist scientist, secular scientists and Christian scientists.

 

[Athée]

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?

That's kind of my point. You need a universe like this for life to be possible my chance, but even still the chances are remote in the extreme. A universe designed for life might teem with it, but in a non designed one you wouldn't expect lots of instances of life, let alone that they would coincide and find each other.

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.

I agree with all of this but it is besides the point. I said that the universe appears to be the only kind of universe that would allow life by chance (old, big etc) you said god made it that way so that people would have a choice about believing or not, they wouldn'tbe compelled by an obviously designed universe and forced to believe. Now I could have just accepted that argument and let you shoot yorself in the foot, since it demonstrates that it is not only reasonable but that God intended that the universe would appear to many as not having design. However I pointed out that God did extravagant things in the bible without worrying that it would force people to believe which renders your supposition that choice is the reason for the apparent lack of design untenable in your own theology.

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?

As apologists are fond of saying, it is a cumulative case, every time we have posited a god to explain a phenomenon, and we have been able to find an answer, it has turned out to have a natural explanation. This is a precedent that bears considering in this instance. Moreover, of all the specific gods posed as responsible for the universe, I see no evidence that they exist aside from God of the gaps, they might possibly exist arguments. That said I don't know that no God is responsible I just don't see the need to multiply entities unecessarily.

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

I'm confused you said it would be special (presumably in a god demonstrating way) even if no life existed. As to the first part the fact that it exists is not that surprising to me,amazing yes but surprising no, again because we have no idea of how universes are formed. And the second point was about life which in this response was meant to be off the table as per your own post.

 

[[serious]]

This one surprised me. I thought you were above that sort of thing.

What sort of thing? It's a good analogy. We have a river of a certain shape, just as we have a universe with certain Constants. Other rivers may have different shapes. The life that develops in any universe must be compatible with that universe, just like a border defined by a river must follow the river.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What sort of thing? It's a good analogy. We have a river of a certain shape, just as we have a universe with certain Constants. Other rivers may have different shapes. The life that develops in any universe must be compatible with that universe, just like a border defined by a river must follow the river.

This says a lot.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's kind of my point. You need a universe like this for life to be possible my chance, but even still the chances are remote in the extreme. A universe designed for life might teem with it, but in a non designed one you wouldn't expect lots of instances of life, let alone that they would coincide and find each other.

Why in a natural arising universe would you expect intelligent life? What predicts intelligent life in a naturalistic universe?

I agree with all of this but it is besides the point. I said that the universe appears to be the only kind of universe that would allow life by chance (old, big etc) you said god made it that way so that people would have a choice about believing or not, they wouldn'tbe compelled by an obviously designed universe and forced to believe. Now I could have just accepted that argument and let you shoot yorself in the foot, since it demonstrates that it is not only reasonable but that God intended that the universe would appear to many as not having design. However I pointed out that God did extravagant things in the bible without worrying that it would force people to believe which renders your supposition that choice is the reason for the apparent lack of design untenable in your own theology.

Unless this is important to you I'm not worried about God's motivation other than the central theme that God created the universe to display design and us to comprehend it.

As apologists are fond of saying, it is a cumulative case, every time we have posited a god to explain a phenomenon, and we have been able to find an answer, it has turned out to have a natural explanation. This is a precedent that bears considering in this instance. Moreover, of all the specific gods posed as responsible for the universe, I see no evidence that they exist aside from God of the gaps, they might possibly exist arguments. That said I don't know that no God is responsible I just don't see the need to multiply entities unecessarily.

What specifically are you referring to as phenomenon that has once been thought to be God where it turned out to have a natural explanation?

I'm confused you said it would be special (presumably in a god demonstrating way) even if no life existed. As to the first part the fact that it exists is not that surprising to me,amazing yes but surprising no, again because we have no idea of how universes are formed. And the second point was about life which in this response was meant to be off the table as per your own post.

I'm sorry now I am confused? What was off the table per my request?

 

[Athée]

Why in a natural arising universe would you expect intelligent life? What predicts intelligent life in a naturalistic universe?

You wouldn't, if it happened at all you would expect it to be rare...just like what we observe.

Unless this is important to you I'm not worried about God's motivation other than the central theme that God created the universe to display design and us to comprehend it.

And we have already disagreed about whether or not it actually looks designed so fair enough.

What specifically are you referring to as phenomenon that has once been thought to be God where it turned out to have a natural explanation?

Thor=thunder and lightning would be an example.

I'm sorry now I am confused? What was off the table per my request?

Lol I see what you did there
Anyway you had said that even if there were no life at all you would still consider this universe special and I asked in what ways, you responder with the simple fact of its existence (which I addressed) and the fact that there is life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You wouldn't, if it happened at all you would expect it to be rare...just like what we observe.

Why would it be rare?

And we have already disagreed about whether or not it actually looks designed so fair enough.

I still will want to come back to how it looks if that is ok with you.

Thor=thunder and lightning would be an example.

No, seriously. What phenomena has turned out to be explained by natural means.

Lol I see what you did there

Uh, no. Enlighten me.

Anyway you had said that even if there were no life at all you would still consider this universe special and I asked in what ways, you responder with the simple fact of its existence (which I addressed) and the fact that there is life.

No I didn't say I would think the universe was special. The universe would still be fine tuned. That was the point.

 

[Athée]

Why would it be rare?

Because it isn't designed to produce it. Imagine you wrote a computer program that was designed to produce primes. It would be surprising if it only produced one. If you wrote a program to generate random numbers and it only produced one it would be less surprising. Obviously this is not entirely analogous and there is an issue of scale but it should clarify my answer above.

I still will want to come back to how it looks if that is ok with you.

Sure

No, seriously. What phenomena has turned out to be explained by natural means.

Thunder and lightning really are an example, rainbows are another, various miracle claims (bleeding statue, healings etc). Illness, natural disasters of all stipes.

Uh, no. Enlighten me.

I started my response with "I'm confused" and you used the same phrasing to start your response...Jinx!

No I didn't say I would think the universe was special. The universe would still be fine tuned. That was the point.

You said

Even if we were not around to consider the implications, the universe would still have to be fine tuned for life other than us. Even if there was no life the fine tuning would still be there. The fact that we are is of course a very important feature but it is not the only feature that makes the fine tuning special.

I was wondering what other features you had in mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it isn't designed to produce it. Imagine you wrote a computer program that was designed to produce primes. It would be surprising if it only produced one. If you wrote a program to generate random numbers and it only produced one it would be less surprising. Obviously this is not entirely analogous and there is an issue of scale but it should clarify my answer above.

Life is rare because it isn't designed to produce it? Now exchanging that with this: Life is rare because God created the universe just for us. This would create the same type of universe as you claim is evidence for a naturally occurring universe that isn't designed. Do you see the problem? I would see a universe teeming with life, as evidence that life was an easy accomplishment for a naturally occurring universe. That it would be just as likely to see life on Mars or Jupiter or any other planet and would be more in line with chemistry being tweaked to allow for all sorts of life. The fact that earth is exactly where it needs to be to support life, has just the chemical composition for liquid water and life itself supports it is uniquely designed, whereas the same type of planets that we've found are not sporting life seems to substantiate a Fine Tuner who created earth for intelligent beings as our selves.

Sure

Thunder and lightning really are an example

Perhaps to you but not very convincing to me , [/Quote]rainbows are another[/Quote]So how does the nature of light and the laws of geometric optics give a naturalistic explanation that once was reserved for God? What gap did they fill?,

various miracle claims (bleeding statue, healings etc). Illness, natural disasters of all stipes.

There was a gap filled in regard to miracle claims such as bleeding statues? What was that explanation that filled the gap? And how was illness or healing or even natural disasters filling a gap that was reserved for God? You see everything that is naturally explained is due to the set up of this universe and its laws of physics and its values that are very set in the universe and its fine tuning and order. What I see happening and others as well is that the more science finds out about the universe and life in it, the more it shows design at its very core. So much so that Francis Crick said that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see is not designed but evolved.

I started my response with "I'm confused" and you used the same phrasing to start your response...Jinx!

Yikes.

You said

Even if we were not around to consider the implications, the universe would still have to be fine tuned for life other than us. Even if there was no life the fine tuning would still be there. The fact that we are is of course a very important feature but it is not the only feature that makes the fine tuning special.

I was wondering what other features you had in mind.

Water, distance from the sun, there are so many just in regard to the earth.

 

[Athée]

Life is rare because it isn't designed to produce it? Now exchanging that with this: Life is rare because God created the universe just for us. This would create the same type of universe as you claim is evidence for a naturally occurring universe that isn't designed

Exactly, this is part of the problem with the god hypothesis, it is so malleable and undefined that it can accommodate any data point. This is not a good thing, it makes it more likely to be a post hoc rationalization than an actual model of reality. Useful models predict things, what things can you predict based on your undergo god and how can we verify them?

There was a gap filled in regard to miracle claims such as bleeding statues? What was that explanation that filled the gap?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_stat.htm
Just a link about one possible explanation and the investigation into another. There are lots more if you want to waste time on them
Quick question are you aware of the term, God of the gaps, and if so what would be an example of that in your mind?

What I see happening and others as well is that the more science finds out about the universe and life in it, the more it shows design at its very core. So much so that Francis Crick said that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see is not designed but evolved.

I rather doubt that they have to constantly remind themselves...
And honestly I don't know what you are referring to here in the first place. In any case unless it actually pertains to the fine tuning argument maybe just add it to our list.

Water, distance from the sun, there are so many just in regard to the

why are water and distance from the sun special?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly, this is part of the problem with the god hypothesis, it is so malleable and undefined that it can accommodate any data point. This is not a good thing, it makes it more likely to be a post hoc rationalization than an actual model of reality. Useful models predict things, what things can you predict based on your undergo god and how can we verify them?

Note: The God hypothesis if that is what you would like to call it, claimed long before any of the technology that we have that earth was selected by God for us to exist on and that the universe would show design. It seems more like a post hoc observation for you to say that the universe appears to be randomly created due to life being rare.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_stat.htm
Just a link about one possible explanation and the investigation into another. There are lots more if you want to waste time on them
Quick question are you aware of the term, God of the gaps, and if so what would be an example of that in your mind?

This made me laugh so hard that I had to calm myself before typing. Do you know how many times this accusation has been leveled against theists and you ask if I am aware of it? It is the accusation that God is used to fill gaps where knowledge is lacking. I think God of the gaps examples generally are irrelevant. But lets take the current discussion as many think this is a God of the gaps situation. When a few of these "coincidences" were found most of the scientists believed that there would be a natural law that would explain them. This was due to the limited number of them and the lack of knowledge of the accuracy of the measurements. So scientists felt that any mention of a fine tuner was just a God of the gaps argument that would be resolved with the Higgs Boson. But as time went on there were more and more of these "coincidences" and then the Higgs was found and it didn't explain anything, in fact, it made the universe even more fine tuned. So it went from a gap in knowledge to knowledge that the parameters were finely tuned for the existence of the universe and for intelligent life. The same is true of Darwin. It was pretty simple to understand how life could arise when one thought that the cell was just a simple blob of goo more or less, and many claimed that thinking God created life was a God of the gaps argument until we gained more knowledge and this blob of goo was a very organized system in itself and appeared designed as well.

I rather doubt that they have to constantly remind themselves...
And honestly I don't know what you are referring to here in the first place. In any case unless it actually pertains to the fine tuning argument maybe just add it to our list.

Do you doubt he said that, or what?

why are water and distance from the sun special?

Did you realize that water is abundant in the universe but on planets it seems to be very rare? Water is very special in its own right. If it didn't have the composition it does all bodies of water would freeze all the way down and all life in them would die. If it didn't have the composition it does plants couldn't utilize it. Life of course of all kinds could not exist. The sun of course I am sure you know if too close it would burn us up and too far we'd freeze and so forth. There are numerous features that make water and sun so special.

 

[Athée]

Note: The God hypothesis if that is what you would like to call it, claimed long before any of the technology that we have that earth was selected by God for us to exist on and that the universe would show design. It seems more like a post hoc observation for you to say that the universe appears to be randomly created due to life being rare.

What a surprise, the two claimed predictions are the same as so many other religions and just so happen to be two things that science doesn't have an answer for.
I will provide you with a pair to balance those.
Prayers in Jesus name will be effective.
Tyre will be destroyed.

Now what?

Seriously though aside from things like the above which are demonstrably false, what does your belief predict that can be tested.

So it went from a gap in knowledge to knowledge that the parameters were finely tuned for the existence of the universe and for intelligent life.

To avoid the accusations of loaded language maybe you should rather say, knowledge that if some things were even slightly different the universe would not exist in the current state nor would life as we know it exist. Anything else is smuggling in your interpretations

The same is true of Darwin. It was pretty simple to understand how life could arise when one thought that the cell was just a simple blob of goo more or less, and many claimed that thinking God created life was a God of the gaps argument until we gained more knowledge and this blob of goo was a very organized system in itself and appeared designed as well.

Never mind that evolution makes sense of this so called design and is possibly the most evidenced scientific theory in existence. But you areally right, we don't know exactly how life started, see a gap fill a gap right!?

Do you doubt he said that, or what

I believe he said it but I think he was exaggerating for effect.

Did you realize that water is abundant in the universe but on planets it seems to be very rare? Water is very special in its own right. If it didn't have the composition it does all bodies of water would freeze all the way down and all life in them would die. If it didn't have the composition it does plants couldn't utilize it. Life of course of all kinds could not exist. The sun of course I am sure you know if too close it would burn us up and too far we'd freeze and so forth. There are numerous features that make water and sun so special.

In other words they are special because they allow life?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So? Why? Why couldn't they be anything else?

Don't change the subject. Instead, address the actual point being made.


And post the survey to support your claim of "most scientists believe...."

 

[DogmaHunter]

The whole thing answers your question very specifically. If you don't understand it that is not my fault. It is telling you how probability x can be calculated.

Yes, indeed, I don't understand it.

Which is why I'm asking YOU to explain it.

After all YOU posted the link. I'll assume that you actually understand what you posted, or else, why would you post it? How would you even know that it actually answers my question, if you don't even understand it yourself.

So, AGAIN (what is this now... the 5th time?)

How do you calculate the probability of X being the way it is, if X is the only example you have and when it is unknown how X comes about?


Please quote the part you think answers my question and explain how that part answers my question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

Even the scientists you quote talk about appearances.

What evidence do you have that it is actual?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Excuse me, if I might interject for just a moment - it seems an analogous example would help OnceDeceived here.

Once, Here is some information I have to share with you about the Sentient Intelligence of the Ohio River. I refer to the article http://knorek.com/RR/Ohio/History/historyOH.htm where it states, and I quote "The Ohio River follows the state's southern border with West Virginia and Kentucky." - Hubert G. H. Wilhelm. This information has been quoted directly from this article that itself was researched and compiled by cartographers and historians in good standing. How does the Ohio River know to follow the State Lines like that?? It HAS to be Intelligent, especially given the improbability that a sentient river could go an infinite number of ways at an equally infinite number of points, this cannot be a coincidence!! The Proof is Plain for All to see!

Here is a Map that Shows how it follows the State Borders with Exact Precision for Hundreds upon Hundreds of Miles!

I know what you're going to say, I can hear it now... "...but the River just flows downhill, so it Has to go that way..." - Well, to all you Naysayers, if that's the way it Had to go, then it must be ESPECIALLY Sentient!! it would have to be Super Intelligent to know it could only go that one way, AND STILL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LINES!!!

How could you not see it for the Intelligent Sentient entity it is?

My view is that a Sentient Intelligent body of Water better explains the Ohio River following the state lines exactly than a purely gravitational-guided naturalistic explanation.

Get ready, get set, and go......

Nice. However, she has been presented with analogies before. And she even not only acknowledged the point being implied, she actually succeeded in forming the correct conclusion by herself!!

...only to then turn around and repeat her tired nonsense, making the exact same reasoning errors that she herself just identified in the analogies.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please provide some documentation that shows scientists feel this example is worth scientific effort to show that it is fine tuned.

"The Ohio River follows the state's southern border with West Virginia and Kentucky." - Hubert G. H. Wilhelm


Are you saying that quotes from scientists, aren't evidence?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

Two reasons, I bet:
1. no reason to think there is
2. the same reason that he doesn't think an undetectable invisible dragon is about to crush him

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't need an argument? You are free of defending your point of view? Why is that?

He isn't giving a point of view. He isn't giving an argument.

He's questioning YOUR argument. YOUR point of view.

It seem you don't understand the difference between making a claim and responding to one.

What gives you the freedom from providing anything to substantiate your view?

Not sharing a view.............................

It appears as if someone or something has dialed in very precise values for at least 30 parameters that allow the universe 1. to exist and 2. to allow intelligent life to exist.

Does it also "appear" that someone or something defined Pi so precisely so that perfect circles could exist?

That is what it looks like, someone setting those parameters to where they need to be.

Now, it's just "someone"? What happened to the "something" that you still included in the previous sentence?

That is the evidence.

Opinions and subjective appearances in the eye of the beholder are "evidence" now?

Now is that appearance actual, and intelligence did dial in very precise values for the universe and intelligent life to exist or is it just an illusion?

Now, after ommitting the "something", the "someone" suddenly changed into "intelligence"?