The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

Argument from ignorance, with some a priori religious sauce on top.

Assertion on your part with opinion through in with a priori non-religious sauce on top.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not?

It doesn't demonstrate what he said must be demonstrated.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I knew what you were referring to. shown how we need to demonstrate the causation with data either. That was the point.

That´s not even a sentence. (ß)
The actual point:
With gravity we have an actual explanation how it works - we don´t need any claim of a single cause or a causing entity.
Whereas your Goddidit doesn´t explain anything.

 

[[serious]]

Yes.

Could you give me a little more about his conclusions in the book then? I'm looking at checking it out from the library but would like to know a bit more about what to expect. What is his view of the multiverse in this book? Does he feel this explains any fine tuning?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Assertion on your part with opinion through in with a priori non-religious sauce on top.

I've explained countless times how and why god-arguments from complexity, probability, fine-tuning, etc are nothing but arguments from ignorance / incredulity.

I don't see the point of repeating myself for the umpteenth time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It doesn't demonstrate what he said must be demonstrated.

Exactly.

And that applies to any and every "god-did-it" claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Could you give me a little more about his conclusions in the book then? I'm looking at checking it out from the library but would like to know a bit more about what to expect. What is his view of the multiverse in this book? Does he feel this explains any fine tuning?

While he makes it clear that much of his ideas are speculation he views the universe unlike anyone else. His theory is a cosmological evolution. A universe somehow sticks and evolves and becomes the parent universe to its offspring which will have the original parameters with modification. He feels this would explain the fine tuning. He is a deep thinker and of course I see problems with his theory scientifically as well as personally but he is interesting to read and I believe quite honest and forthright in his openness to his theory being speculative. He does grant that God is a valid option just not scientific and that is why his theory he feels is more scientific because it can be tested and falsified.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I've explained countless times how and why god-arguments from complexity, probability, fine-tuning, etc are nothing but arguments from ignorance / incredulity.

I don't see the point of repeating myself for the umpteenth time.

I don't either because I've shown you for the umpteenth time that not even the scientists who work in the field believe it is an argument from ignorance or incredulity and you ignore it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly.

And that applies to any and every "god-did-it" claim.

So we should not be concerned about gravity since it can't be demonstrated?

 

[RickG]

That´s not even a sentence. (ß)
The actual point:
With gravity we have an actual explanation how it works - we don´t need any claim of a single cause or a causing entity.
Whereas your Goddidit doesn´t explain anything.

She got off on a tangent completely unrelated to what I was trying to explain to her. She had expressed a correlation between "God" and "fine tuning". With that claim I mentioned that a correlation between two things requires a causation. Thus, the lack of evidence of showing the two are related nullifies a correlation. Then she came up with what causes gravity. What causes gravity has nothing to do with any correlation, what gravity affects does. I could not get that point across.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That´s not even a sentence. (ß)
The actual point:
With gravity we have an actual explanation how it works - we don´t need any claim of a single cause or a causing entity.
Whereas your Goddidit doesn´t explain anything.

We know about fine tuning as well. And we don't have an explanation on how gravity works. Rick is trying to claim that we have to demonstrate the cause of something to allow it to be evidence to support a hypothesis when that is simple not true and Gravity is an example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

She got off on a tangent completely unrelated to what I was trying to explain to her. She had expressed a correlation between "God" and "fine tuning". With that claim I mentioned that a correlation between two things requires a causation. Thus, the lack of evidence of showing the two are related nullifies a correlation. Then she came up with what causes gravity. What causes gravity has nothing to do with any correlation, what gravity affects does. I could not get that point across.

You haven't shown that with my example of gravity...

 

[RickG]

We know about fine tuning as well. And we don't have an explanation on how gravity works. Rick is trying to claim that we have to demonstrate the cause of something to allow it to be evidence to support a hypothesis when that is simple not true and Gravity is an example.

review post 2290.

 

[Oncedeceived]

review post 2290.

Yes, and like I said we don't demonstrate the causation of gravity in correlation with it.

 

[RickG]

Yes, and like I said we don't demonstrate the causation of gravity in correlation with it.

I didn't bring gravity up, you did when I asked you for the causation showing goddidit. It is not a I'm right your wrong question, it is a question asking for evidence that the causation of fine tuning is God. Without it the claim is unsupported, not I'm right your wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't bring gravity up, you did when I asked you for the causation showing goddidit. It is not a I'm right your wrong question, it is a question asking for evidence that the causation of fine tuning is God. Without it the claim is unsupported, not I'm right your wrong.

I know you didn't bring up gravity. I am asking you for evidence for the causation of gravity. Its the same thing. You are demanding evidence of causation be demonstrated when that is not expected nor required in other examples...i.e. gravity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So we should not be concerned about gravity since it can't be demonstrated?

Huh??

Rather: we shouldn't be concerned with "explanations" that explain exactly nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't either because I've shown you for the umpteenth time that not even the scientists who work in the field believe it is an argument from ignorance or incredulity and you ignore it.

Strawmen don't demonstrate anything, except intellectual dishonesty.

 

[RickG]

I know you didn't bring up gravity. I am asking you for evidence for the causation of gravity.

I already did in post # 2232. Gravity does not exist as an object or entity. It is an uneven distribution of mass/energy, as described by Einstein's general theory of relativity. The result of that unevenness is what we call gravity.

You are demanding evidence of causation be demonstrated when that is not expected nor required in other examples...i.e. gravity.

I am not demanding anything. I'm only making the point that for one thing to be an influence over another, causation must be demonstrated.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm only making the point that for one thing to be an influence over another, causation must be demonstrated.

Demonstrated or exercised?