The fine tuning of the universe.

[DogmaHunter]

The OP is proposing explanations based on the fine tuning of the universe. I feel Theism better explains the fine tuning than naturalism.

Only because that is what you believe. Not because you an actually demonstrate or even only remotely support any of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are asserting my conclusion is wrong without one shred of evidence to support your claim.

What is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v1.pdf page 5 if it doesn't take you to the exact page.

How does that answer my question?

What? Explain what you mean here?

... I don't see how that question isn't clear...

See page five.

Explain how "page 5" answers my question.
I'm not seeing it. I assume you do, since you seem convinced that "page 5" answers the question. Explain how.

That is what you are looking at in the link I provided.

It seems "page 5" merely lists the constants. How does it answer the question I'm asking?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Either way it doesn't change the fine tuning. If they couldn't be different, all that means is that it has to be fine tuned and can't be anything but fine tuned.

So.... we're back to "I'm right, even when I'm wrong!!"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, there is a chance of 1/10¹⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰ % isn't there?
Or did i forget some zeros?

How did you come up with that probability?

 

[DogmaHunter]

46AND2. I provided the math from Roger Penrose and this link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf Has all the calculations for the fine tuned constants.

DogmaHunter wanted to know how they calculated probability which is what I gave him.

No. I wanted you to explain how the probability of anything can be calculated if you have a set of only ONE and don't know anything about how that ONE thing originates.

And by "explain", I meant actually explain. Not post links to page long articles that might or might not have an answer.

 

[46AND2]

46AND2. I provided the math from Roger Penrose and this link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647v2.pdf Has all the calculations for the fine tuned constants.

DogmaHunter wanted to know how they calculated probability which is what I gave him.

No...dogma wanted to know how the probability of a very specific set could be calculated, which fit your claim, and was not answered in the link.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If one is going to claim that the design that is apparent in the universe is just an illusion it is their burden of proof.

Once again, I'm not making any claims at all about the origins or nature of the universe. In fact, throughout the thread I've maintained that the only reasonable thing to say at this point is that we do not know.

I'm only here, responding to YOUR claims.

That is simply false.

No. Go back and read. I've always said that we don't know, so we shouldn't pretend to know.

If something is designed it will appear designed, the universe appears designed.

That is just false. I can easily design something wich looks not designed at all.
The opposite is also easily true... things can appear designed (to our biased and subjective minds), while they aren't designed at all.

For example:

And for the upteenth time, when somebody says "this appears like..." then they are expressing an opinion.

What appears like X to you, might not appear like X to someone else.

That information is solid.

No, it's biased, opinionated and subjective.

If one wishes to claim that this appearance of design is not actual they have to come up with a reason that the universe's appearance of design is an illusion.

No. Again, I'm not claiming anything.
Saying about X that it "appears" a certain way, is not a claim that requires any refutation or confirmation. Because it is just an opinion.

What requires evidence is a claim like "it is NOT designed" or "it IS designed".

YOU are the one claiming that it IS designed.
So YOU are the one with the burden of proof here. And if your only evidence is "it looks that way", then your case isn't very strong, now is it....

Consider this analogy....
In a courtroom, you might say "this dude appears guilty!".
Well, great.... But IS he actually guilty? That is a claim that requires evidence.
Failing to support that case, does not automatically make the dude innocent - true. But in a courtroom, you aren't required to prove that you are innocent. You are required to prove that someone is guilty.

The same applies here.
You are claiming design.... support that claim.

There are only two options here for the appearance of design:
1. It is actual design.
2. It is an illusion of design.

That is only true when one actually agrees with the subjective opinion that it appears designed.

Opinions are irrelevant. If you wish to claim it is designed, then support that claim with something more then "I think it appears that way".

 

[KCfromNC]

I've given you a link showing the probablity

If your links actually answered the question, you'd be able to give us the number you feel is correct. For some reason you continue to avoid doing so. That's very interesting.

 

[KCfromNC]

Lee Smolin has a book where he calculates the probability of stars, which I told you earlier and I don't have that book nor can I find his calculations online.

I wasn't asking for the probability of stars so don't waste your time.

Roger Penrose did a paper, I provided that as well.

Did a paper on what, specifically? What number did he come up with for the odds of this universe being the way it is? Last time you brought it up I thought you claimed the number he calculated was 1, which kinda goes against your assertions here.

Now I don't care whether you want a calculation or not because the scientists all agree the universe is unlikely to be by chance,

Now they all agree? Every single last one of them? And you still can't find a single reference to show exactly how unlikely they "all" think the universe is. What are the odds?

 

[KCfromNC]

But that doesn't seem to make it unlikely to some I guess.

Made up numbers don't have much effect here in the real world.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is you who is confused. I've made it very VERY VERY clear that the scientists do not argue for God as the conclusion.

I've pointed out the same thing. You don't have a problem discounting the conclusions of your own experts when they disagree with your faith. That makes the whole appeal to them a farce. You're basically just cherry picking and quote mining them for things which you agree with and discounting the bigger context they're trying to explain. That's pretty misleading.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well at this point the scientists do not believe they had to be the way they are and could be different.

Citation needed.

 

[AirPo]

How did you come up with that probability?

Apparently he's got a whole lot of zero.

 

[AirPo]

Well at this point the scientists do not believe they had to be the way they are and could be different. They are constant, that is why they call them the fundamental constants. No, fine tuning is based on the parameters of the universe are at a very precise value that is required for the universe to exist and intelligent life. It is a very supported fact.

No it's not. There is nothing but wishful thinking to support the claim that anything is "required."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearance of a horse is a horse.

View attachment 177095

Right this is a cloud and no one would confuse a real horse with a similar shape of a horse. That is why fine tuning is not just about Pareidolia (/pærᵻˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-doh-lee-ə) which is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern of something where none actually exists.

The facts are that the values (scientifically determined) are precisely what is required for the universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist in it. This is not a pattern of something where none actually exists. We know for certain that the measurements need to be where they are.

 

[AirPo]

Right this is a cloud and no one would confuse a real horse with a similar shape of a horse. That is why fine tuning is not just about Pareidolia (/pærᵻˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-doh-lee-ə) which is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern of something where none actually exists.

The facts are that the values (scientifically determined) are precisely what is required for the universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist in it. This is not a pattern of something where none actually exists. We know for certain that the measurements need to be where they are.

You keep incorrectly using words like "required" and "need."

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, when the only thing that we know is what was NOT there, why are you making claims about what WAS there?

I wonder if you thought about what you were saying when you wrote this. What we know is that the universe didn't exist and then it did. Along with that existence the existence of the laws of physics and the values of the fundamental constants came into being. That is why we make claims about things that are there....because they are there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You keep incorrectly using words like "required" and "need."

No, I'm using them correctly. the values are precisely what is required for our universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist.

 

[AirPo]

No, I'm using them correctly. the values are precisely what is required for our universe to exist and for intelligent life to exist.

No, they are not required.