Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm saying that scientists like Hawking have already made these calculations. Even atheist scientists agree that the universe looks like it is fine-tuned for life. The question is why. Deal with it.So by "we can also calculate" do you mean you've done this work, or are you just saying that at some point in the future someone might put together a working model which may or may not correspond to your particular guesses?
I agree. So we shouldn't rule it out as a possibility for the fine-tuning of the universe.I already noted that design is a possibility...
I copied these for you because you seem to be in some state of denial about whether scientists have professionally voiced their opinion about the fact that the universe looks fine-tuned.Some, as individuals, may be of this opinion, but not as scientists.
But not scientifically.I copied these for you because you seem to be in some state of denial about whether scientists have professionally
Just their opinion. Got it.voiced their opinion
...that some of them perceive "fine-tuning" (definitions vary). Can you read minds? How do you establish this as "fact"?about the fact that the universe looks fine-tuned.
Please quote the actual passage, so we can see if this is speculation.Physicist P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes!4
4 P.C.W. Davies, Other Worlds (London: Dent, 1980), pp. 168, 169.
The anthropic principle is a tautology.Davies also calculates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by merely one part in 10 raised to the 100th power (!) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.5
5 P.C. W. Davies, “The Anthropic Principle”, in Particle and Nuclear Physics
"If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."http://sqentropy.ax.lt/ebook/Stephen Hawking - A brief history of time/g.html
What are the other alternatives? Gods, being only characters in books at this point, do not appear to be an alternative.Most physicists would rather believe string theory uniquely predicts the universe, than the alternatives. These are that the initial state of the universe, is prescribed by an outside agency, code named God Or that there are many universes, and our universe is picked out by the anthropic principle".
S.W. Hawking "Cosmology from the Top Down" paper presented at the Davis Cosmic Inflation Meeting. U.C. Davis May 29, 2003.
Hang on, you ignored everything else I said. The most salient point, I think, was about evolution and the appearance of design: what appeared to have been designed turned out to have evolved. I think Davian's question continues to be relevant: you regularly allude to the views of scientists as an authority on this or that issue, but do you accept their other claims? For example, you alluded to the Big Bang as support for the second premise of the KCA, but do you accept that this means the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? You quoted Dawkins and Crick noting the appearance of design in biology, but do you accept evolution?I agree. So we shouldn't rule it out as a possibility for the fine-tuning of the universe.
I'm saying that scientists like Hawking have already made these calculations.
While his profile page says "Young Earth Creation", I would presume the answer to that would be, no.Hang on, you ignored everything else I said. The most salient point, I think, was about evolution and the appearance of design: what appeared to have been designed turned out to have evolved. I think Davian's question continues to be relevant: you regularly allude to the views of scientists as an authority on this or that issue, but do you accept their other claims? For example, you alluded to the Big Bang as support for the second premise of the KCA, but do you accept that this means the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? You quoted Dawkins and Crick noting the appearance of design in biology, but do you accept evolution?
While his profile page says "Young Earth Creation", I would presume the answer to that would be, no.
I didn´t make a fallacious statement. I was clearly referring to a scenario without further conditions (e.g. knowing that there are designers, knowing how and why they design stuff) - the very scenario we have when trying to find out whether and how the universe came into existence.Seriously? Instead of acknowledging to your self that you made a fallacious statement...
... and quietly moving on, you're actually going to reply by making a false accusation that I am using circular reasoning?
I have done it often enough, just to see that you are ignoring the arguments.Ok then. Please point out exactly where in my OP (copied below) did I use circular reasoning?
Just their opinion. Got it.
No, I do not mean perception of fine-tuning. You are confusing, as many do, the difference between stating the fact that "the universe is fine-tuned" and saying that "the universe looks designed".What fine-tuning? Do you mean, the perception of fine-tuning?
It's a matter of record. The following is a fallacious statement. The consequent does not logically follow from the antecedent. It's embarrassing if you keep denying it. Just accept it and move on.I didn´t make a fallacious statement.
If the odds for something to be the way it is are extremely low, the odds for it to be designed that way are equally extremely low.
You haven't even done it once. How about backing up your accusations with proof?I have done it [demonstrate that circular reasoning is in the argument of the OP] often enough, just to see that you are ignoring the arguments.
Please stay on topic of the OP.Hang on, you ignored everything else I said. The most salient point, I think, was about evolution and the appearance of design: what appeared to have been designed turned out to have evolved. I think Davian's question continues to be relevant: you regularly allude to the views of scientists as an authority on this or that issue, but do you accept their other claims? For example, you alluded to the Big Bang as support for the second premise of the KCA, but do you accept that this means the universe is at least 13.8 billion years old? You quoted Dawkins and Crick noting the appearance of design in biology, but do you accept evolution?
You seem to have trouble understanding the situation. Scientists (even atheist ones) say that the universe is fine-tuned. I have cited quotations from them to back that up. If you are going to make a counter-claim that disputes their findings, then the onus is on you to back up your counter-claim. The scientists are on my side of the argument in regards to p1.Then you'll have no problem telling us the exact probability distribution for each of the fundamental constants you claim is fine tuned. Don't forget to include your work and show references for each of those results.
So your post here does nothing to address the OP, but is only designed to deflect from the subject of the thread. Please stay on topic.Does this argument sound like another poster on this board.
Cherry picking statements from Dawkin's, but then ignoring Dawkin's conclusions?
Cherry picking arguments from Willy Craig, when he states folks who don't agree the universe is 13.8 billion years old, are ignorant?
So your post here does nothing to address the OP, but is only designed to deflect from the subject of the thread. Please stay on topic.While his profile page says "Young Earth Creation", I would presume the answer to that would be, no.
Conclusions? What conclusions are you referring to? Please cite conclusions specifically referencing the argument of the OP.My post isolates the obvious; you cherry pick certain people statements and then choose to ignore their conclusions on the same topic.
Conclusions? What conclusions are you referring to? Please cite conclusions specifically referencing the argument of the OP.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?