Vote: what is the best argument against fine tuning

[LaraLara]

the human mind could really be tricked, but for this reason there has been a true God to prevent the deceiver from tricking it, and from this perspective i can't say a human cannot distinguish one thing or another from other things

Blessings

It is intersting to know the christian position on this, thanks

 

[he-man]

How is a book that has hundreds of self contradictions "flawless"? How is a book that gets so much science wrong if read literally "flawless"? And I can't even begin to get into the failed prophecies here. That discussion would have to be done in the apologetics area.

You must be talking about the Koran. There are inserts into the Bible which were added at a much later date and were not part of the original. For example Daniel and the lions den.. and many others that were added to the originals. You must be able to understand the original meaning and what were metaphors.The only trickster in the Bible in when you listen to your own mind and do not understand the total concepts of scripture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must be talking about the Koran. There are inserts into the Bible which were added at a much later date and were not part of the original. For example Daniel and the lions den.. and many others that were added to the originals. You must be able to understand the original meaning and what were metaphors.The only trickster in the Bible in when you listen to your own mind and do not understand the total concepts of scripture.

Nope, but there is no helping those that blind themselves.

 

[lesliedellow]

You must be talking about the Koran. There are inserts into the Bible which were added at a much later date and were not part of the original. For example Daniel and the lions den.. and many others that were added to the originals. You must be able to understand the original meaning and what were metaphors.The only trickster in the Bible in when you listen to your own mind and do not understand the total concepts of scripture.

For something to have been added to the Bible, it would need to have been added after there was a Bible. The canon of the Jewish Bible was in place by the first century AD, and it contained Daniel in the form it now appears in Protestant Bibles. Therefore, Daniel in the lion's den is not an insert.

 

[TBDude65]

Not so. Anything which has recognisable significance needs accounting for.




It may say "Calvinist," below my avatar, but you are the one who brought up the subject of a designer. There is no shortage of scientists, who are atheists, and to whom the universe looks like a "fix," to borrow a term used by one of them.

And you introduced a second straw man, nice

 

[lesliedellow]

And you introduced a second straw man, nice

No I did not. Some things demand explanation, and they cannot be disposed of with a wave of the statistical wand.

 

[ananda]

Some of the physics of this universe seems to be preprogrammed to create life. What is your favourite argument against such a line of thought? You can mention several arguments of course but I would like to know which one you prefere.

If the physics were different, who's to say that different forms of life could not have arisen?

 

[toLiJC]

How is a book that has hundreds of self contradictions "flawless"? How is a book that gets so much science wrong if read literally "flawless"? And I can't even begin to get into the failed prophecies here. That discussion would have to be done in the apologetics area.

Scripture is not (self-)contradictory, nor is its subject/purpose to detract from science or (to) prove that it is wrong, it is another question whether everyone that read(s) the Bible understands it correctly, of course Scripture is not a god, nor the Living Word of God itself, but just His recorded Word, and it must not be taken literally, because many things in it are kind of figurative...

Blessings

 

[toLiJC]

It is intersting to know the christian position on this, thanks

there have been things that humans cannot see, because they are invisible to them

Blessings

 

[LaraLara]

If the physics were different, who's to say that different forms of life could not have arisen?

Until now we know that all MATERIAL life forms should have a metabolism and that requires liquids but not carbon. The universe seems already fine tuned to provide atoms and chemistry and thus the requirements for such life forms to exist. Other life forms could be possible but I find them a bit to speculative to discuss in a just way.

The metabolism is needed to gain energy to protect life against entropy (living beeings constantly repair themselves).

 

[HitchSlap]

there have been things that humans cannot see, because they are invisible to them

Blessings

It seems it's not the invisible things people have trouble with, but the obvious visible things right in front of their faces.

 

[lesliedellow]

Second response to same post.

 

[toLiJC]

It seems it's not the invisible things people have trouble with, but the obvious visible things right in front of their faces.

how?!, if the cause of the causes was quite visible to people, how would they miss resolving the problem?!

Blessings

 

[HitchSlap]

how?!, if the cause of the causes was quite visible to people, how would they miss resolving the problem?!

Blessings

They choose to accept causes that fit their religious leanings, and reject reality.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I feel very bad about the antropic principle. You could find evidence of an incredible amount of fine tuning and it could still not be disproven. It defines the problem of fine tuning away which is not a proper way to discuss nor a sign of curiosity.

The WAP says nothing about the degree of fine tuning, nor does it define the problem away.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even if no life existed in the universe, some kind of intelligencies looking on from outside would still see something which looked incredibly finely tuned.

What would you expect a universe without 'finely-tuned' parameters to look like, and what sort of values would its parameters have?

 

[LaraLara]

What would you expect a universe without 'finely-tuned' parameters to look like, and what sort of values would its parameters have?

It was not explained to me what parameters are but I will try to do my best.

If I would have to write a code that creates an universe. I would have to write something that creates all the natural laws (prefarably some form of unification rule) and in addition I need to write some kind of rule what values that laws should have (there is the possibility that there is a meta-rule that explains the values but it has not been found). Now the code that picks a random number from a range between 0 and infinity is shorter than a code that assigns a fixed number to each individual law.

So according to Occams bosom ... razor the proposition that a potential universe has an infinite range of values for natural laws to choose from makes more sense. If an infinite range realy gives an infinite number of universe to compare propability too I don t know because some of them could just collapse imediately.

Fine tuned universes are just those who can give mater that has the ability to chemical react as life needs a metabolism to counter entropy (you are allowed to construct a universe without entropy now, I am curious how it looks).

As an additional comment: because entropy is one of the strongest principles in the universe I would be suprised something that can reverse it. It does not need to be non-natural but it needs further investigation.

 

[LaraLara]

The WAP says nothing about the degree of fine tuning, nor does it define the problem away.

So hith what evidence do I falsify it if fine tuning is real?

 

[toLiJC]

They choose to accept causes that fit their religious leanings, and reject reality.

unfortunately there has been great religious fanaticism, and true Saints have also been victims of it, but this doesn't mean there is no true God...

Blessings

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I find the antropic principle stupid now...

Lol - you might as well say you find 1 + 1 = 2 to be stupid.