The fine tuning of the universe.

[KCfromNC]

I used the number used by Barnes.

And yet a different source you posted shows a different answer. Perhaps there isn't as much of a scientific consensus as you claim.

I don't know what you mean by 30 degrees of freedom, explain please?

Sorry, not my job to teach you math. Perhaps if you were more forthcoming in answering my questions I'd feel differently.

I guess you need to set those experts straight.

You might not think I know what I'm talking about but at least I don't have to ask strangers on the internet to teach me the math I've been claiming supports my beliefs...

Anyway, ask which experts about what, specifically? You haven't been able to find anything from the experts which shows they're saying what you claim that they do.

This is just like saying we shouldn't be surprised to see gravity since if we didn't we'd be flying out to space.

Are you honestly surprised when you get out of bed and don't float to the ceiling? No really, like you're genuinely surprised and thank god(s) that you don't just float away any time you take a step? That's a really weird way to live.

 

[Belk]

However, there’s another, grander perspective from which life in the cosmos is rare. That perspective considers all forms of matter, both animate and inanimate. Even if all “habitable” planets (as determined by Kepler) do indeed harbor life, the fraction of all material in the universe in living form is fantastically small. Assuming that the fraction of planet Earth in living form, called the biosphere, is typical of other life-sustaining planets, I have estimated that the fraction of all matter in the universe in living form is roughly one-billionth of one-billionth. Here’s a way to visualize such a tiny fraction. If the Gobi Desert represents all of the matter flung across the cosmos, living matter is a single grain of sand on that desert. How should we think about this extreme rarity of life? This is explaining why he thinks it is rare for intelligent life.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...n-700-quintillion-kind-of-place/#.V3VdkesrLnA

A new study suggests that there are around 700 quintillion planets in the universe, but only one like Earth. It’s a revelation that’s both beautiful and terrifying at the same time.

Astrophysicist Erik Zackrisson from Uppsala University in Sweden arrived at this staggering figure — a 7 followed by 20 zeros — with the aid of a computer model that simulated the universe’s evolution following the Big Bang. Zackrisson’s model combined information about known exoplanets with our understanding of the early universe and the laws of physics to recreate the past 13.8 billion years.

Zackrisson found that Earth appears to have been dealt a fairly lucky hand. In a galaxy like the Milky Way, for example, most of the planets Zackrisson’s model generated looked very different than Earth — they were larger, older and very unlikely to support life. The study can be found on the preprint server arXiv, and has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal.

OK. Both of these are speculative are they not?

 

[KCfromNC]

I think it is cohesive with the Fine Tuner wishing to be known through the fine tuning and life on earth being the focus of this galaxy and perhaps the entire universe.

And if there was life on every planet in the universe you'd be saying it made just as much sense. That's what makes this whole approach a post hoc rationalization rather than an explanation.

They know enough to base an argument on it.

Who does, and what argument? Certainly not one for gods considering how many non-believers you've quoted as experts in the field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet a different source you posted shows a different answer. Perhaps there isn't as much of a scientific consensus as you claim.

Which source? When was it written?

Sorry, not my job to teach you math. Perhaps if you were more forthcoming in answering my questions I'd feel differently.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the math that physicists use is the same math that cosmologists use and if there is a problem with the math that one of these scientists use it will be reviewed and refuted by peer review. I don't need to know the mathematical equations and the numbers because the scientists in the field are the ones that do that and they have a system that corrects incorrect mathematical calculations.

You might not think I know what I'm talking about but at least I don't have to ask strangers on the internet to teach me the math I've been claiming supports my beliefs...

See above.

Anyway, ask which experts about what, specifically? You haven't been able to find anything from the experts which shows they're saying what you claim that they do.

Simply false.

Are you honestly surprised when you get out of bed and don't float to the ceiling? No really, like you're genuinely surprised and thank god(s) that you don't just float away any time you take a step? That's a really weird way to live.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK. Both of these are speculative are they not?

Yes, but with reasonable information to provide a base.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And if there was life on every planet in the universe you'd be saying it made just as much sense. That's what makes this whole approach a post hoc rationalization rather than an explanation.

And if there was you would be saying that life is so easy that any system could provide it.

Who does, and what argument? Certainly not one for gods considering how many non-believers you've quoted as experts in the field.

I've quoted non-believers, Deists, Christians, secular scientists and agnostics. They claim fine tuning for intelligent life is real.

 

[Belk]

Yes, but with reasonable information to provide a base.

They are reasonable in that they draw reasoned conclusions from the set of assumptions they are working off of. It is in the end still entirely speculative (In some cases I would say highly speculative) in nature. The truth is that we simply do not know how much life is out there in the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They are reasonable in that they draw reasoned conclusions from the set of assumptions they are working off of. It is in the end still entirely speculative (In some cases I would say highly speculative) in nature. The truth is that we simply do not know how much life is out there in the universe.

Heya Oncedeceived, How goes the battle? I am curious how any scientist could make this claim given that we have explored .0000000000000000000000001% of the universe with enough authority to claim there is no life on it and in half of those explorations life has been abundant.

I was providing how scientists could make this claim, they are going on these reasons (speculative yes but reasoned) we know that in our own solar system life is rare and we have no actual reasoning to claim that life is abundant just past the horizon of our knowledge.

 

[Belk]

I was providing how scientists could make this claim, they are going on these reasons (speculative yes but reasoned) we know that in our own solar system life is rare and we have no actual reasoning to claim that life is abundant just past the horizon of our knowledge.

Ah! So when you said "scientists" you just meant a couple of scientists in particular not the majority? I'm sorry I was thinking you meant the later. That explains it much better then.

 

[KCfromNC]

Which source?

Oh, we're playing this game again - the one where you pretend to not remember posting links to things that were at the time supposedly vital support for your argument? This runaround is getting old.

Anyway, check post 1852 for the source I'm discussing. You'll remember it as one of the papers you posted and then couldn't explain the relevance of (e.g. posts 1881, 1889, 1903, and so on).

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the math that physicists use is the same math that cosmologists use and if there is a problem with the math that one of these scientists use it will be reviewed and refuted by peer review.

This would be a meaningful point if you could just find a peer reviewed paper which supported your claims that our particular universe is unlikely.

Yeah, funny how the argument doesn't make much sense when you use something we know a lot about as the basis. But drag something we're ignorant about as the basis and it suddenly becomes valid? Nope, it is just an example of stuffing a god into one of the gaps of our knowledge hoping that it doesn't get stuck when we learn a bit more about reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

And if there was you would be saying that life is so easy that any system could provide it.

Please, tell me more about your mind reading skills.

I've quoted non-believers, Deists, Christians, secular scientists and agnostics. They claim fine tuning for intelligent life is real.

But only in the sense that if the constants were different in some way, life wouldn't be possible or at least would be very different. That's far different than using it as an argument for god(s) as you are. So which experts am I supposedly questioning again? Please be specific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ah! So when you said "scientists" you just meant a couple of scientists in particular not the majority? I'm sorry I was thinking you meant the later. That explains it much better then.

Wait? Not sure what you are saying here? Could you explain?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, we're playing this game again - the one where you pretend to not remember posting links to things that were at the time supposedly vital support for your argument? This runaround is getting old.

I've posted many links in this thread. Asking which one is really not exceptional considering that fact alone.

Anyway, check post 1852 for the source I'm discussing. You'll remember it as one of the papers you posted and then couldn't explain the relevance of (e.g. posts 1881, 1889, 1903, and so on).

IF you can post numbers of post in regard to it, why not just be polite and post the link when you are referring to it?

This would be a meaningful point if you could just find a peer reviewed paper which supported your claims that our particular universe is unlikely.

I've posted a peer reviewed paper which supported my claims that our universe is unlikely and quotes as well from leading scientists in the field. You ignore them.

Yeah, funny how the argument doesn't make much sense when you use something we know a lot about as the basis. But drag something we're ignorant about as the basis and it suddenly becomes valid? Nope, it is just an example of stuffing a god into one of the gaps of our knowledge hoping that it doesn't get stuck when we learn a bit more about reality.

I've shown that even scientists don't put it as a God of the gaps argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please, tell me more about your mind reading skills.

Oh sorry, I didn't know that was reserved just for you.

But only in the sense that if the constants were different in some way, life wouldn't be possible or at least would be very different. That's far different than using it as an argument for god(s) as you are. So which experts am I supposedly questioning again? Please be specific.

Get your arguments in order. Intelligent life could not exist nor the universe if they were different. That is based on scientific evidence. That is what evidence is and a conclusion is something one arrives at based on the evidence. Are you getting that yet?

 

[KCfromNC]

I've posted many links in this thread. Asking which one is really not exceptional considering that fact alone.

IF you can post numbers of post in regard to it, why not just be polite and post the link when you are referring to it?

Because I've wasted time in the past doing so only to be ignored. Ironically enough, just like you're doing here - you complain that you don't like the specific way I answered your question rather than responding to the content of my answer.

I've posted a peer reviewed paper which supported my claims that our universe is unlikely and quotes as well from leading scientists in the field.

You complain that I give post numbers with no links and yet I don't even see a post number here. What gives?

You ignore them.

Which post, specifically? And be sure to only use a post number rather than a link so that I can get in the fun of nit-picking how others reference posts.

I've shown that even scientists don't put it as a God of the gaps argument.

Don't put what as a god of the gaps argument?

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh sorry, I didn't know that was reserved just for you.

It's not mind reading when I'm just repeating what you posted.

Get your arguments in order. Intelligent life could not exist nor the universe if they were different. That is based on scientific evidence. That is what evidence is and a conclusion is something one arrives at based on the evidence. Are you getting that yet?

If this is all you're trying to say, why bring up all the stuff about our universe being unlikely and gods being involved? Or is this another attempt at a a bait and switch?

 

[Belk]

Wait? Not sure what you are saying here? Could you explain?

I had thought you were claiming the scientific community was saying that there was very little life in the universe. It appears now you were simply saying there are some scientists who are claiming this.

 

[JaneC]

My view as the theist is that God better explains the fine tuning of the universe than a purely atheistic naturalistic explanation.

Why in your opinion was the universe fine tuned?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why in your opinion was the universe fine tuned?

It is not my opinion. It is a scientific phenomena.

 

[AirPo]

It is not my opinion. It is a scientific phenomena.

No it's not.