Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

And uniformity and consistency is what is to be expected in the absence of supernatural beings changing things. It goes back to newton, an object at rest stays at rest as long as no force acts in it. In the absence of supernatural beings we can expect things to just do what they do.

What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?

None. It's simply an unnecessary extra assumption.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?

The Bible comes to mind -- God has tried (and failed) in the past to keep humanity down whenever they tried to acquire knowledge He didn't want them to have...

 

[Davian]

What evidence do you have that God would do something other than create a universe that is comprehensible, consistent and uniform so that the intelligent beings He created could acquire knowledge?

I would paraphrase the Laplace quote in this post as:

God who?

 

[Oncedeceived]

None. It's simply an unnecessary extra assumption.

I can live with that, If you can.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the point. It doesn't. To quote Laplace "I have no need for that hypothesis"

I disagree. Without the uniformity of the universe it would be impossible to do any science whatsoever. So whether you conclude that it is just what it is or whether you are a theist and know that it is because of God; you still have to have it to have knowledge at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I would paraphrase the Laplace quote in this post as:

God who?

The Christian God Davian.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I disagree. Without the uniformity of the universe it would be impossible to do any science whatsoever. So whether you conclude that it is just what it is or whether you are a theist and know that it is because of God; you still have to have it to have knowledge at all.

Uniformity is what to expect in the absence of something changing it. It is an unfounded and unnecessary assumption that there is an unknown force generating uniformity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Bible comes to mind -- God has tried (and failed) in the past to keep humanity down whenever they tried to acquire knowledge He didn't want them to have...

That isn't true.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

I can live with that, If you can.

Yep. I have no problem with other people's beliefs (it's their actions that matter).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. I have no problem with other people's beliefs (it's their actions that matter).

I can respect that.

 

[Davian]

The Christian God Davian.

A character in a book. Why does anyone need to know about deities to do science, your beliefs, and untestable assertions, notwithstanding?

 

[Oncedeceived]

A character in a book. Why does anyone need to know about deities to do science, your beliefs, and untestable assertions, notwithstanding?

They don't "need" to know anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then I have observed evidence that universes contain constants.

You have observed that this universe contains constants.

I am saying that you don't have the empirical knowledge to claim that our universe is improbable. The empirical knowledge you need is the exactly the empirical knowledge you claim we don't have. We don't know if there are other universes or not, and that is exactly the knowledge you need in order to claim that our universe is improbable.

That wasn't my claim. I said that but that wasn't my claim.

Under your rules, any universe would be fine tuned.

No.

Supports what claim?

That God created the universe. That God exists. That my worldview is supported by evidence.

Then please show me the probability calculations you are using. Prove me wrong.

For what probability? The one that Smolin used? I don't know what you are asking for.

Please show me your calculations.

For which constants?

Where?

So now we go back to not agreeing with the fine tuning?

You have never shown that the universe was fine tuned so that there would be life.

That is what it is all about.

Then how can you claim that it was not by chance? If we lack the evidence as to whether it was by chance or not, how can you claim that it is improbable?

There is nothing within the laws of physic as we understand them that points to a natural origin of the constants being so fine tuned. Do you think I am making this up? Have you not been aware of physicists claiming that the universe has very fine tuned constants that if they were changed by the smallest degree we would not have life on earth? Are you claiming you don't understand that?

Using your definition of fine tuned any universe would be fine tuned.

Not so.

 

[Davian]

They don't "need" to know anything.

Hence the "God who" comment. They (scientists) don't need to know about deities.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hence the "God who" comment. They (scientists) don't need to know about deities.

They don't to do science. They have to work within His universe though.

 

[Davian]

.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

Why not? If the constants of this universe were different, then our universe would be different, and the unique features found in that different universe would be dependent on just those constants. That is fine tuning.

That God created the universe. That God exists. That my worldview is supported by evidence.

What evidence? (this question has been asked without an answer multiple times now)

For what probability? The one that Smolin used? I don't know what you are asking for.

I am asking for the probability that our universe would have emerged with the constants we observe by chance.

There is nothing within the laws of physic as we understand them that points to a natural origin of the constants being so fine tuned.

There is nothing that points away from it either. You are simply pointing to a gap in our knowledge and inserting your deity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not? If the constants of this universe were different, then our universe would be different, and the unique features found in that different universe would be dependent on just those constants. That is fine tuning.

If it were different it would not have the fine tuning, that is the point. It would not be "fine tuned" if the constants were not as they are. If they had different values, the universe might not exist at all.

What evidence? (this question has been asked without an answer multiple times now)

Do you think that just saying that over and over makes it true? I think that anyone with any unbiased position would see that I have. You may not agree with it but it is there.

I am asking for the probability that our universe would have emerged with the constants we observe by chance.

That was never my claim. I said it was improbable but that was not what my claim was.

There is nothing that points away from it either. You are simply pointing to a gap in our knowledge and inserting your deity.

Do you really think that or are you only listening to Davian.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it were different it would not have the fine tuning, that is the point.

Of course you would. The unique features in that universe would require a very narrow range of constants, just like life in our universe.

Do you think that just saying that over and over makes it true? I think that anyone with any unbiased position would see that I have. You may not agree with it but it is there.

You haven't presented anything to disagree with. Where is the evidence?

That was never my claim. I said it was improbable but that was not what my claim was.

Why did you say it was improbable if you can't produce the probabilities?

Do you really think that or are you only listening to Davian.

I really think that. Those are my words.