The fine tuning of the universe.

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

Cartography and Geography provide ample evidence that the Ohio River is sentient, and That is the evidence. It appears that it intelligently follows the State Lines with remarkable precision and accuracy. That is what it looks like, intelligence is guiding the River to where it need to go to match the state lines. That is the evidence. Now is that appearance actual, and intelligence did guide the River very precisely for the river to match the state lines so exactly or is it just an illusion? Two choices:
1. Its an illusion created by sheer coincidence where every turn of the River just happened to marry up perfectly with the state lines for hundreds of miles.
2. It is not an illusion but is a sentient intelligence.

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.

They don't support your conclusions at all.... unless you believe that sunrises and sunsets supports a geocentric, immovable earth?
and to return to another point you made earlier...

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

in exactly the same way the data for the Ohio River path traces the State Lines so perfectly...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would it be rare?

Are you joking?

It took 3.6 billion years before homo sapiens arrived at the scene.
Some 70.000 years ago, we almost went extinct.

A single space rock could obliterate all life on this planet.
We are the result of a 3.6 billion year chain of events.

There were 5 massive extinction waves, without wich we wouldn't even exist.

How can you sit there and ask why it would be rare......

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

Yes, seriously. Just about every natural phenomena that has an actual explanation today, has a natural explanation. And each and every one of them were previously attributed to gods or other such supernatural shenannigans.

You are not aware of this?

Lightning = jupiter
Thunder = thor
Sea storms and tides = poseiden
Desease = demons
........

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

Which only goes to show how meaningless the entire argument is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Did this, by any chance, happen Last Thursday? ;-)

 

[AirPo]

Do you know that God doesn't exist?

I corrected you, not God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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 would be interested to know which other religions claim that God created the universe for us and that it should appear designed. Do you have links to those? Do any others claim the universe had a beginning? Do any others claim the universe is stretched out? Just curious because I've studied quite a lot of other religions and other than Islam which takes much of its own material from the Old Testament I don't recall any with these same claims? Thanks.

I will provide you with a pair to balance those.
Prayers in Jesus name will be effective.
Tyre will be destroyed.

Prayer never goes unanswered, it might not be in the way that one wishes at the time but it is effective. How do you propose to show that it is ineffective?

This might interest you: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...Fallibility-of-The-Old-Testament.aspx#Article

Now what?

I don't know, now what?

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

Well like I said above, the universe has a beginning. It was thought throughout history that the universe was eternal. The universe is spread out...no one understood that the universe was expanding and there was no evidence that it was until recently. The universe is to appear designed, no one took this to mean anything other than just by its grandeur that it appeared designed until the fine tuning was discovered. Intelligent beings are predicted and found in a universe that specifically allows them to exist. Now obviously this is post hoc as predictive but intelligence I believe is better explained by theism than unguided evolution. While most religions claimed the earth was either supported by turtles, elephants and so forth, the Bible claims that the earth is hung on nothing. The Bible claims there are mountains at the bottom of the oceans and also that springs are found there as well. The Bible claims that there is no new material ever created after the Creation of the universe and we now know that is completely the case. Everything that exists existed at the very beginning. According to the Bible the sun had a cycle but at the time people thought the sun and earth were still. So those are a few predictions.

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

Ok.

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!?

Evolution didn't evolve. There had to be information and order which did not evolve. Taking abiogenesis out of the picture for instance, evolution doesn't explain where the needed information came from to create the next generation. Evolution doesn't tell us how DNA information started nor how the order of such exists. So while evolution is very much evident, that in no way explains design nor existence.

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

For effect for whom? Explain?

In other words they are special because they allow life?

Not necessarily intelligent life as I said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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


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

A survey? On what? Fine tuning? Do you still doubt that there is a consensus of experts in the field that think Fine tuning is a real phenomena?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Nice properties of Bayes’ theorem

1. We can incorporate data piece by piece
   
   
2. Theories are rewarded for making data more probable
   
   
3. Good theories beat their rivals
   
   
4. Sherlock Holmes’ principle: the best theory need not be perfect
   
   
5. information changes nothing
   
   
6. Nothing new, nothing changes
   
   
7. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
   
   
8. Certainty is serious
   
   
9. We can compare two theories independently of all others
   
   
10. A theory divided against itself will not stand.

We can take any piece of data one at a time and incorporate them into the equation. Then we hypothesize theories that make data less probable are dismissed while theories that make data more probable then are compared to others and good ones beat out the ones that are not as good. The theories need not be perfect and information that is unclear or not exact changes nothing, some very extreme claims require extreme evidence and certainty is serious. Theories can be compared to each other independently of all others and one that goes against itself is thrown out.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"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?

I am saying that this is not an analogy of fine tuning. Now instead of just asserting that it is not the same, the reasoning for my claim is this:
1. Rivers do not stay constant and in the same place in the same way or are they the same volume at all times.
2. Most borders were constructed on the fact that society forms around rivers and other water ways.
3. Rivers move into new areas and in the past were different and in the future due to flooding or man made changes will change where the river runs.

 

[crjmurray]

What do we got here? Conclusion jumping, quote mining, burden of proof shifting? Sounds like the usual hoot!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Even the scientists you quote talk about appearances.

What evidence do you have that it is actual?

What evidence do you have that it is not? If it appears to be designed and one claims it is not actual design and is an illusion then one must show why it is only an illusion and not actual design because design is real and an illusion is not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What do we got here? Conclusion jumping, quote mining, burden of proof shifting? Sounds like the usual hoot!

Provide proof that there is not a consensus among the experts in the field that fine tuning is a real phenomena. Acknowledgement of appearance of design is not jumping to conclusions of design. Design has an appearance that we recognize or it wouldn't have an "appearance of design". I've presented documentation for the fine tuning and the fine tuning is evidence of design which provides my burden of proof.

 

[AirPo]

Provide proof that there is not a consensus among the experts in the field that fine tuning is a real phenomena.

The fact that there is not one thinks your version of finetuning is a real phenomena is a good start.

Acknowledgement of appearance of design is not jumping to conclusions of design.

Which is what scientists do, the OP however ...

Design has an appearance that we recognize or it wouldn't have an "appearance of design".

Much like the saying if thing were different they'd be different. Pointing out the obvious is worthless unless the obvious needs to be pointed out. In this case, the obvious has been pointed out againg and again. And just like you know the band is going to do an encore, here it comes again.

I've presented documentation for the fine tuning and the fine tuning is evidence of design which provides my burden of proof.

This same mistake is being made over and over again. Stating the obvious, which has nothing to do with the claim being made in the OP, is nothing more than stating the obvious which has nothing to do with the claim in the OP.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sweetie, that's been done for 80 pages. And every other time you've tried this. It's old hat. What you say, is not what the actual scientists say. Move on.

It is what the actual scientists say. They don't claim the same conclusions about it but what I've said they have said is actual and not quote mined.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that there is not one thinks your version of finetuning is a real phenomena is a good start.

Which is what scientists do, the OP however ...

Much like the saying if thing were different they'd be different. Pointing out the obvious is worthless unless the obvious needs to be pointed out. In this case, the obvious has been pointed out againg and again. And just like you know the band is going to do an encore, here it comes again.

This same mistake is being made over and over again. Stating the obvious, which has nothing to do with the claim being made in the OP, is nothing more than stating the obvious which has nothing to do with the claim in the OP.

All you are doing is claiming I am wrong about my conclusions. That isn't a different version of the phenomena of fine tuning, it is a different conclusion based upon it. All of you have a real issue with confusing the evidence and conclusions based on that evidence.

 

[Veera Chase]

All you are doing is claiming I am wrong about my conclusions. That isn't a different version of the phenomena of fine tuning, it is a different conclusion based upon it. All of you have a real issue with confusing the evidence and conclusions based on that evidence.

But there is no evidence outside of your head that's what people have been trying to tell you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But there is no evidence outside of your head that's what people have been trying to tell you.

But the evidence is the fine tuning of the universe and you and the others are denying the evidence and then claiming there is no evidence. You can claim if you want that you don't share the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to make my conclusion or that there is a better explanation that explains the evidence but you can't claim there is no evidence because that is very well documented.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

But the evidence is the fine tuning of the universe and you and the others are denying the evidence and then claiming there is no evidence. You can claim if you want that you don't share the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to make my conclusion or that there is a better explanation that explains the evidence but you can't claim there is no evidence because that is very well documented.

But the evidence is the exact precision of the river with the state line and you are denying the evidence and then claiming there is no evidence. You can claim if you want that you don't share the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to make my conclusion or that there is a better explanation that explains the evidence but you can't claim there is no evidence because that is very well documented.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But the evidence is the exact precision of the river with the state line and you are denying the evidence and then claiming there is no evidence. You can claim if you want that you don't share the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient to make my conclusion or that there is a better explanation that explains the evidence but you can't claim there is no evidence because that is very well documented.

The evidence that the river runs precisely alone the state line is in evidence and then when it doesn't it will show that the river flows where it flows.

You are trivializing fine tuning, which is fine if you want to dismiss a serious phenomena that scientists the world over are exploring that is up to you.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The evidence that the river runs precisely alone the state line is in evidence and then when it doesn't it will show that the river flows where it flows.

You are trivializing fine tuning, which is fine if you want to dismiss a serious phenomena that scientists the world over are exploring that is up to you.

I'm not sure you get the point. In what universe do atheist Scientists indicate fine tuning is something that's actually derived of intelligence, then continue to be atheists? What do you know of the conditions that this universe began from? Is there only one? are there a quantzillion, billion universes? Can these variables even be different?

My analogy is essentially a mirror of the nonsense you're putting forward. You don't know this universe isn't one in an infinite number of universes, nor do you even know if these constants can be different, yet you're positing that there has to be an intelligence for essentially the same nonsensical reasons that I posit an intelligent river.

 

[bhsmte]

Ever get the feeling, that if some folks didn't fully engage their defense mechanisms to protect their personal theological belief, their whole world would come tumbling down?