Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

I don't deny that we find ourselves in a universe that is capable of supporting life.

That wasn't what I asked.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are absolutely 100% correct. I never claimed there were.

That is the evidence I am asking for. Where is the evidence that God designed anything in this universe.

I have always claimed that I have supportive evidence of God creating the universe. Those evidences are scientific in nature.

What are they?

So you are claiming that you deny what scientists are saying about the fine tuning of the universe?

I am denying what you claim about deities doing the fine tuning.

Is a lake bottom finely tuned to the shape of the water in the lake? Sure is, but it doesn't require the help of a deity. It occurs naturally. Is the coffee cup finely tuned to the shape of the coffee? Again, it surely is, but no fine tuning by any intelligence was necessary. It occurs all on its own. So why would finding life in a universe capable of supporting life be evidence for a deity?

Like I said I don't have the paper to see what he did or did not include.I don't personally think it rested on anything other than our universe itself. It was based on the stars if I am correct, although, I am not certain of that.

Here is another analogy that I often use.

Let's say that I have a huge bag full of little tiles. You reach into the bag and pull out a tile that has the number 115134 on it. With just that information, what is the probability that you would pull out a tile with 115134 on it?

 

[Loudmouth]

That wasn't what I asked.

Then what are you asking?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then what are you asking?

I asked if you deny that the universe if fine tuned.

 

[Loudmouth]

I asked if you deny that the universe if fine tuned.

Define "fine tuned".

 

[Smidlee]

That is part of the problem as well. We may be like a bacteria on a grain of rice under the refrigerator who wonders if the entire kitchen was made just for them. For all we know, the designer of the universe meant to create a sterile universe full of black holes, and failed.

If a bacteria could think that then it has a good reason to believe that.

 

[Loudmouth]

If a bacteria could think that then it has a good reason to believe that.

They would be wrong.

 

[Davian]

I ask again do you deny fine tuning of the universe.

What fine tuning?

 

[JWGU]

They are universal for the universe we find ourselves in.

I actually think even "observable universe" basically denotes anything we can analyze scientifically. If we can't observe it (even indirectly), we can't falsify predictions about it, though we can make them.

Actually, "world" and "galaxy" did have the same meaning as "universe" at one time. I am not saying that our past mistakes indicates the truth of a multiverse, but surely we should recognize our own hubris before exclaiming that there are no other universes.

So essentially, your reasoning is that we have developed enough theory behind what we currently believe to be the sum totality of existence that if we discover some way of observing more (somehow--though I feel this again goes against the definition of observable universe) we should slap a new name onto it? I don't know... what I am mainly skeptical about is the idea that there is some uniform distribution of universes, all of which differ from our universe only in the values of fundamental physical constants, while the laws that govern them are still more or less modeled by the same equations. I frankly can't think of anything we've observed in any domain that works like that. Like I said, past experience isn't really a good guide here, but even if the situation were as you describe I would expect to find discontinuities, different "densities" of particular combinations of constants, possibly specific circumstances in which the "rules" changed, complex interactions between the "bubbles," and so on. Just throwing "infinite" out there doesn't do it for me--it's the scientific equivallent of Goddidit.

In fairness, I know there are many specific theories that expect multiple universes, but they are pretty much universal in not having been substantiated by any evidence. These include the many-worlds interpretation--which has the added difficulty that it doesn't predict different cosmological constants in the first place.

I guess my conclusion is: I don't know for sure that there aren't other "universes" but I have very good reasons for believing that if they are there, they are outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

 

[Smidlee]

They would be wrong.

Not necessary.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not necessary.

In the specific case I was discussing, they were wrong. Kitchens are not designed for a single bacterium growing under the refrigerator, and on the grand scheme of the universe we live in we are even less significant than that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is the evidence I am asking for. Where is the evidence that God designed anything in this universe.

Really do you remember that you said supportive evidence is evidence. How soon you forget.

I am denying what you claim about deities doing the fine tuning.

So you deny that it would support my claim, why? Even if you don't agree I would think that it is a reasonable conclusion that it would support my claim. IF that is the case, how does it not support it? How does it falsify my position.

Is a lake bottom finely tuned to the shape of the water in the lake? Sure is, but it doesn't require the help of a deity. It occurs naturally. Is the coffee cup finely tuned to the shape of the coffee? Again, it surely is, but no fine tuning by any intelligence was necessary. It occurs all on its own. So why would finding life in a universe capable of supporting life be evidence for a deity?

That is a natural occurring situation, as I have shown, there is no naturalistic known explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. So using something that is completely known to be naturally occurring in comparison to something that is not is not comparable.

Here is another analogy that I often use.

Let's say that I have a huge bag full of little tiles. You reach into the bag and pull out a tile that has the number 115134 on it. With just that information, what is the probability that you would pull out a tile with 115134 on it?

Well it is not comparable either. IF you had a bag full of little tiles and reach in the bag and pull out the number 115134 on it but it wasn't placed in the bag at all, and there was no reason for that number to be in there, that would be comparable.

 

[Smidlee]

In the specific case I was discussing, they were wrong. Kitchens are not designed for a single bacterium growing under the refrigerator, and on the grand scheme of the universe we live in we are even less significant than that.

You are not referring to original bacteria but thinking bacteria.

 

[JWGU]

Not necessary.

Even if you somehow misread that as being about the refrigerator itself and extend "single bacterium" to "all microbial species" it would still be wrong because most of us use the refrigerator not just to preserve perishable food, but also to keep things like water cold.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Define "fine tuned".

If you don't know what we are talking about, how do you expect me to take anything you say seriously?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really do you remember that you said supportive evidence is evidence. How soon you forget.

I remember asking you multiple times for that evidence, and you refuse to present it. You refused again with this reply.

So you deny that it would support my claim, why?

You haven't presented any evidence.

That is a natural occurring situation, as I have shown, there is no naturalistic known explanation for the fine tuning of the universe.

Then you are using an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy, not evidence.

Well it is not comparable either. IF you had a bag full of little tiles and reach in the bag and pull out the number 115134 on it but it wasn't placed in the bag at all, and there was no reason for that number to be in there, that would be comparable.

Still waiting for you to calculate the probability of drawing out a tile with the number 115134 on it.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you don't know what we are talking about, how do you expect me to take anything you say seriously?

Just making sure that we are on the same page. Please define "fine tuning" as you see it.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are not referring to original bacteria but thinking bacteria.

And that thinking bacterium would still be wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I actually think even "observable universe" basically denotes anything we can analyze scientifically. If we can't observe it (even indirectly), we can't falsify predictions about it, though we can make them.
So essentially, your reasoning is that we have developed enough theory behind what we currently believe to be the sum totality of existence that if we discover some way of observing more (somehow--though I feel this again goes against the definition of observable universe) we should slap a new name onto it? I don't know... what I am mainly skeptical about is the idea that there is some uniform distribution of universes, all of which differ from our universe only in the values of fundamental physical constants, while the laws that govern them are still more or less modeled by the same equations. I frankly can't think of anything we've observed in any domain that works like that. Like I said, past experience isn't really a good guide here, but even if the situation were as you describe I would expect to find discontinuities, different "densities" of particular combinations of constants, possibly specific circumstances in which the "rules" changed, complex interactions between the "bubbles," and so on. Just throwing "infinite" out there doesn't do it for me--it's the scientific equivallent of Goddidit.

In fairness, I know there are many specific theories that expect multiple universes, but they are pretty much universal in not having been substantiated by any evidence. These include the many-worlds interpretation--which has the added difficulty that it doesn't predict different cosmological constants in the first place.

I guess my conclusion is: I don't know for sure that there aren't other "universes" but I have very good reasons for believing that if they are there, they are outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

I totally agree. Very eloquent as well. Don't mistake this for me saying that I feel you agree with me or what I am saying. Just making a statement of agreement and complimenting you on it as well.

 

[Smidlee]

And that thinking bacterium would still be wrong.

Now you are not thinking. A self-ware thinking bacteria create by man put into a kitchen so it could grow and learn from it surroundings. This is your can of worms that was opened.