The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

[leroy]

.

[
You have never read A Brief History of Time, thus you have no idea what Steven Hawkins's actual opinion is on this subject.?

well I have read the grant design, where he made similar statements.....

but feel free to make your own research, please let us know about your conclusions.

However, what Hawkins believes or does not is irrelevant. You are dealing with me, deal with my arguments.

I am just asking an honest question..............according to you what is SH missing? why do most scientists grant that the universe is FT? What are they missing?


there is nothing wrong to be against the majority of the expert opinion, but you have to have a reason for your disagreement.


[

Says the person that does not see a difference between seems to have been and is.

well, instead of interpreting the quote to fit your own personal preferences, why don't you do research and learn about SH view?

I never said can't, I said it seems very difficult to conclude something would be fine-tuned if we have only one sample of that thing. Again, you can prove me wrong by actually demonstrating that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. Whenever you are read, I will be happy to look at your evidence

.


well here is my evidence

Examples:
- αg the gravitational force, determines the initial rate of expansion of the universe: a
higher value then that actually observed leads to a collapse of the whole universe on itself
(more or less immediately after its start); however, if the value would be a little bit lower,
there would have been no gravitational aggregation of matter, implying no formation of
galaxies, stars or planets and low complexity of the resulting universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Dandekar/publication/27487135_Why_are_natures_constants_so_fine-tuned_The_case_for_an_escalating_complex_universe/links/0deec516520a8b5d83000000.pdf


potencial falsifications>

. prove that stars, planets, galaxies would form even if gravity where stronger

. Prove that life could exist without stars galaxies and planets

 

[leroy]

How narrow is that range for a life permitting universe and in what units are these values? And how did you determine that range. And how did you determine that most of the time any small change (another vague non-value term) in these values would end up producing a universe outside this narrow range.

One of the problems I have with the fine tuning argument is that the people who use this argument view the physical constants as if all of these are set by a Cosmotron 9000 with a turning knob for each constant.

This is my FOURTH objection to the fine tuning argument.

4. What are the odds?
The argument asserts that the odds of these physical constants, being as they are, coming about by change is so low that it couldn't have happened by chance alone. However there is no way to conclude this since we only have one universe and you cannot calculate any probability by a sample size of 1.
To understand why, lets say you are allowed to play in a lottery and you are thus the only one that plays in the lottery.
The number you got was: 1234567890
Wow, what are the chances? But not only that it turns out that you won the lottery! What are the chances now? Well, what is it? Seriously, how can you tell? You need more information.
For example could it be that you could've gotten a ticket with a number other then 1234567890 or was this the only ticket that they had?
And how did you win? Could it be that the winning number could only be the number 123457890 or could the number vary within 0000000000 and 999999999 or where there other limits that increases the likely hood like if the limit was between 1234567889 and 1234567891 in which case the chance of the number 1234567890 being the winning number is one in three?
Without knowing all this, you cannot tell what the chance was of you winning the lottery. By all we know, the chance could've been 1 in 1.
Now what would you say about someone who comes up to you and say that the odds were astronomically low and puts up a number even though he has the exact same amount of information you have? I say he is talking out of his ass, which proponents of the fine tuning argument also do.
They assert for the sake of their argument the notion of "altering the constants" by saying if you alter slightly the constants the chances are yadayada. And they will pull out some big number like 1 in 10 to the power of something out of their asses and make absurd analogies like "this event is so improbably it is like winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life" just to impress the weak mined, but they don't have the calculations to demonstrate any of that.

Based on the assumption that this is how the values values are (values that can change along a range impossible to define), they (the ones that uses the argument) assert that a god had to tune those knobs or else, the knobs would have set on any value by random change and having the knobs tuned in this exact way for a life permitting universe, just by change, is so low it is practically impossible.

There is no math to be done here to calculate what the changes are for these values.

So can you prove these two points you have laid out. I highly doubt that.

what you are describing is what apologetics typically call physical necessity or just necessity, you are correct, maybe there is only 1 winning tiket, maybe there is only 1 possible universe.


typically apologetics account for this possibility and explain why design is a better explanation.


about the math, it is not so hard to understand.

all you have to do is imagine a world where the force of gravity is 1% stronger, one can use simulations and see the result.

 

[Nesslig20]

what you are describing is what apologetics typically call physical necessity or just necessity, you are correct, maybe there is only 1 winning tiket, maybe there is only 1 possible universe.

That is not at all what I am describing. What I am describing is their assertion about "if these values where slightly off...than yadayaday universe would not permit life". In other words, their argument contains an unwarranted assumption that these values can change in a range they cannot define.

The point is that for all the data that we have, the odds of all these constants being as they are without a designer could as well be 100%

typically apologetics account for this possibility and explain why design is a better explanation.

The explanation they put forward basically boils down to pure freaking magic. Which isn't an explanation at all.

This is my third objection to the fine tuning argument

3. Can God or a fine tuner explain the fine tuning or the apparent fine tuning of the universe?
No, well unless you can explain how the fine tuner fine tuned the universe and show the accuracy of your explanation just like any scientist demands of someone who is proposing an explanation of phenomenon X.
Did the fine tuner first made a machine with turning nobs that determine the constants of the universe? Or did the fine tuner just use magic? What material did he use, what was his method and how can you tell?
In science you cannot just say phenomenon X is explained by explanation Y, you've to explain the model so anyone can objectively understand it and you've to demonstrate the accuracy of your model.
To illustrate this:

This when those who believe in the supernatural (i.e. magic) get very uncomfortable because the supernatural is by definition outside our perceptible reality, beyond investigation. Supernatural "explanations" cannot be understood nor objectively confirmed in anyway thus they don't qualify as an explanation and this is why science operates on methodological naturalism aka the scientific method.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Science needs something to work with and until someone proposes a mechanism to test the supernatural, the material world is all what science has to work with.
This doesn't mean that you cannot believe in the supernatural, you are free to believe in any unsupported nonsense you like, nor does it mean there is no supernatural, it just means we cannot tell anything about it other then subjective faith based assertions that cannot be verified to be true. There are many scientists who believe in various types of gods, but most of them like my favorite one (Kenneth Miller, catholic and fierce critic of ID/creationism) recognize the importance of the scientific method and why their beliefs in the supernatural are a matter of personal subjective conviction on faith and don't qualify as science for that reason.

And also, another objection that I have not made yet, the explanation isn't either "random chance" or "design". This is a false dichotomy spouted by people who don't understand that processes can happen that are not random, yet are not the product of an intelligent agency.

about the math, it is not so hard to understand.
all you have to do is imagine a world where the force of gravity is 1% stronger, one can use simulations and see the result.

Are you saying you want to prove your two points by using imagination? Well I feel inclined to rest my case right there. As I said, you have nothing to work with to calculate the probability of a universe with these constants arising by random chance.

If you can imagine another world, I can imagine a multi verse and that would be a sound explanation too. But I don't accept the multi verse theory and I don't use that as an argument, so don't begin to accuse me of imagining a multi verse just to account for the fine tuning of the universe, because the hypocrisy would just be too much (because you are imagining things to account for the fine tuning as well).

You can, as you said, imagine a universe with gravity that is stronger, just like I can imagine that I played a lottery (look back at my fourth objection) where my lottery ticket could have a different number, but not the correct number to win the lottery.

But imagine these things, doesn't mean you are able to calculate the probability of me winning the lottery. I can simulate the chance of me winning a lottery with multiple players and such, but until I have the actual data in the real world, I cannot calculate what the odds are of me winning the lottery in reality. Until I know what the conditions of that lottery is, which I don't, I can't calculate the odds of me winning. And you don't have that either with the case of the physical constants. All you have is one winning lottery ticket and the rests is unknown. You don't have the data to calculate the probability nor the range that you want to prove. And apparently, this range that you speak of is imaginary by admission.

 

[leroy]

[

That is not at all what I am describing. What I am describing is their assertion about "if these values where slightly off...than yadayaday universe would not permit life". In other words, their argument contains an unwarranted assumption that these values can change in a range they cannot define.

[

No, theist do not assume that values can change, the probability card is only used when the atheist appeals to chance hypothesis in order to explain the FT.

if you what to adopt a naturalistic hypothesis that does not rely on it happened by chance it would be meaningless to talk about the probabilities

And also, another objection that I have not made yet, the explanation isn't either "random chance" or "design". This is a false dichotomy spouted by people who don't understand that processes can happen that are not random, yet are not the product of an intelligent agency.

no one is claiming that these are the only 2 options.

as you pointed out, there could be a third option, maybe there is only 1 ticket in the lottery.

3. Can God or a fine tuner explain the fine tuning or the apparent fine tuning of the universe?
No, well unless you can explain how the fine tuner fine tuned the universe and show the accuracy of your explanation just like any scientist demands of someone who is proposing an explanation of phenomenon X.[

the argument is based on the assumption that in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y, one most explain how X did it.

this assumption is simply false, science doesn't work according to that assumption.

Are you saying you want to prove your two points by using imagination? Well I feel inclined to rest my case right there. As I said, you have nothing to work with to calculate the probability of a universe with these constants arising by random chance.

well scientists and specially cosmologist make simulations and models all the time (they imagine stuff) Einstein Imagined some stuff and came out with his theory of relativity.

one can perfectly imagine (or make a simulation) on what would happen is gravity where stronger.

But imagine these things, doesn't mean you are able to calculate the probability of me winning the lottery. I can simulate the chance of me winning a lottery with multiple players and such, but until I have the actual data in the real world, I cannot calculate what the odds are of me winning the lottery in reality. Until I know what the conditions of that lottery is, which I don't, I can't calculate the odds of me winning. And you don't have that either with the case of the physical constants. All you have is one winning lottery ticket and the rests is unknown. You don't have the data to calculate the probability nor the range that you want to prove. And apparently, this range that you speak of is imaginary by admission.

granted, the theist should not presuppose that the probability is low, probabilities would only apply if the atheist decides to defend a chance hypothesis.

 

[Nesslig20]

[

That is not at all what I am describing. What I am describing is their assertion about "if these values where slightly off...than yadayaday universe would not permit life". In other words, their argument contains an unwarranted assumption that these values can change in a range they cannot define.

[

No, theist do not assume that values can change, the probability card is only used when the atheist appeals to chance hypothesis in order to explain the FT.

Yes, YOU did assume that. You said you could prove the range that permits life is narrow and that any slight change would end up with a universe that couldn't sustain life.

if you what to adopt a naturalistic hypothesis that does not rely on it happened by chance it would be meaningless to talk about the probabilities
[

It would be meaningless to talk about probabilities to be begin with, since you only have a sample size of 1 universe. That is why you cannot prove that your range is narrow, nor that any slight chance would end up with a universe unable to support life. Well, other than using your imagination that is.

And also, another objection that I have not made yet, the explanation isn't either "random chance" or "design". This is a false dichotomy spouted by people who don't understand that processes can happen that are not random, yet are not the product of an intelligent agency.

no one is claiming that these are the only 2 options.
[

The people who use the fine tuning argument do! They say the constants couldn't come about by chance alone, since the odds are so low, thus an intelligent fine tuner is more probable.

as you pointed out, there could be a third option, maybe there is only 1 ticket in the lottery.

Which would mean that the conclusion "goddidit" is not a conclusion that necessarily follows from the argument.

3. Can God or a fine tuner explain the fine tuning or the apparent fine tuning of the universe?
No, well unless you can explain how the fine tuner fine tuned the universe and show the accuracy of your explanation just like any scientist demands of someone who is proposing an explanation of phenomenon X.[

the argument is based on the assumption that in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y, one most explain how X did it.

this assumption is simply false, science doesn't work according to that assumption.

Science DOES work like that. Any scientific explanation must be a working model that must describe the process that explains natural phenomena.

If you have an explanation that is

It is MAGIC!!!

That doesn't count as an explanation, because magic isn't an explanation for the reason I explained in my third objection.

Are you saying you want to prove your two points by using imagination? Well I feel inclined to rest my case right there. As I said, you have nothing to work with to calculate the probability of a universe with these constants arising by random chance.

well scientists and specially cosmologist make simulations and models all the time (they imagine stuff) Einstein Imagined some stuff and came out with his theory of relativity.

OMG, they don't use these models to come to calculate the probability of THIS universe we live in coming about by chance. Equivocation fallacy. Because simulation can be used for one thing doesn't mean they can be used for another.

Einstein didn't imagine stuff. He did thought experiments based on established physics and scientists tested this ideas and confirmed it, THEN it became a theory.

one can perfectly imagine (or make a simulation) on what would happen is gravity where stronger.

Yes, BUT they cannot calculate what the probability of gravity (as it is in our universe) by chance, based on that simulation. THAT is the difference.

I can simulate a lottery with multiple tickets, but I cannot use that simulation to calculate what the odds are of ME winning the lottery, since I don't know there WERE actually multiple tickets.

But imagine these things, doesn't mean you are able to calculate the probability of me winning the lottery. I can simulate the chance of me winning a lottery with multiple players and such, but until I have the actual data in the real world, I cannot calculate what the odds are of me winning the lottery in reality. Until I know what the conditions of that lottery is, which I don't, I can't calculate the odds of me winning. And you don't have that either with the case of the physical constants. All you have is one winning lottery ticket and the rests is unknown. You don't have the data to calculate the probability nor the range that you want to prove. And apparently, this range that you speak of is imaginary by admission.

granted, the theist should not presuppose that the probability is low, probabilities would only apply if the atheist decides to defend a chance hypothesis.

Theists always presuppose that the probability is low when using the fine tuning argument. Just look up William Lane Graig using that argument during the first round of a debate (without any atheist defending a chance position) and you will see him say that the constants arising by chance is so low it is practically impossible or something along those lines.

But he cannot calculate the probability thus you don't have an argument.

 

[leroy]

Yes, YOU did assume that. You said you could prove the range that permits life is narrow and that any slight change would end up with a universe that couldn't sustain life.
[

narrow doesn't mean improbable,

I told you before and ill tell you now.

the probability argument only applies if the atheist, agnostic, skeptic or whatever adopts a chance hypothesis.

for example some would argue that the values where given by a stochastic event, for example multiverse theorist believe that there are many universes each one with a different value on each of the forces and parameters. in this case the probability of living in a life permitting universe would be low. therefore in this kind of cases it makes sense to argue about possibilities.

theist don't presuppose that there are many possibilities, chance theorist (including multiverse theorists do)

The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our own universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it.
If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical constants, then some of these universes (even if very few) would have the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve.
The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we (as conscious beings) would only exist in one of those few universes that happened to be finely tuned, permitting the existence of life with developed consciousness. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the requisite conditions for life (as we understand life), those conditions do not require intelligent design as an explanation for the conditions in the Universe that promote our existence in it.
An early form of this reasoning is evident in Arthur Schopenhauer's 1844 work "Von der Nichtigkeit und dem Leiden des Lebens", where he argues that our world must be the worst of all possible worlds, because if it were significantly worse in any respect it could not continue to exist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Anthropic_principle

The people who use the fine tuning argument do! They say the constants couldn't come about by chance alone, since the odds are so low, thus an intelligent fine tuner is more probable.

yes theist would argue that design is more probably true than chance, but this does not imply that there are only these 2 options.

if an atheist proposes a third option, then the theist most show that design is better than this third option, and if this third option does not relly un chance it would be meaningless to talk about possibilities.............agree?

[

Which would mean that the conclusion "goddidit" is not a conclusion that necessarily follows from the argument.

granted, no one is saying that God did it, necessarily follows from the argument.

what I would argue is that design is a better explanation that any other explanation that has been proposed. No one is saying that design is the only possible explanation.

//////////////////////////////////

this is what I said

the argument is based on the assumption that in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y, one most explain how X did it.

this assumption is simply false, science doesn't work according to that assumption.

and this is your reply..

Science DOES work like that. Any scientific explanation must be a working model that must describe the process that explains natural phenomena.

If you have an explanation that is

It is MAGIC!!!

That doesn't count as an explanation, because magic isn't an explanation for the reason I explained in my third objection.

everyone can see how you did not answered my objection, as it is usual among atheist in this forum, you made an irrelevant comment, that has nothing to do with my claim.


In order to stablish that X is the cause of Y, one does not have to prove HOW X did it.............agree?

if yes, then your third objection has been falsified.

if no then you would have to deny everything, every single scientific truth. (or at least most of them)

Einstein didn't imagine stuff. He did thought experiments based on established physics and scientists tested this ideas and confirmed it, THEN it became a theory.

well you can perform a thought experiment, and determine what would happen is gravity would have been 1% stronger.

]

Yes, BUT they cannot calculate what the probability of gravity (as it is in our universe) by chance, based on that simulation. THAT is the difference.

granted, I never said that one can use simulations, (imagine stuff) to calculate probabilities.

the only point that I am making is that you don't need to have other universes in order to determine what would happen if gravity would have been 1% stronger................agree?

Theists always presuppose that the probability is low when using the fine tuning argument. Just look up William Lane Graig using that argument during the first round of a debate (without any atheist defending a chance position) and you will see him say that the constants arising by chance is so low it is practically impossible or something along those lines.

But he cannot calculate the probability thus you don't have an argument.

No, William Lane Craig always mentions 3 possibilities.

Now there are only three ways to account for this remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life: physical necessity, chance, or design

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning#ixzz4XdVYgFAx

I would add a fourth possibility,

maybe the complexity order and FT that we observe is just an illusion, maybe we live in the matrix, and maybe the robots live in a universe where there is not a fine tuning problem

the theist should only use the probability card, if the opponent adopts a chance hypothesis, if you ever find a theist that uses the probability card against an opponent that is not adopting a chance hypothesis, then he would be wrong, and he would be using fallacious reasoning.

 

[Akamia]

this is what I said

the argument is based on the assumption that in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y, one most explain how X did it.

this assumption is simply false, science doesn't work according to that assumption.

and this is your reply..

Science DOES work like that. Any scientific explanation must be a working model that must describe the process that explains natural phenomena.

If you have an explanation that is

It is MAGIC!!!

That doesn't count as an explanation, because magic isn't an explanation for the reason I explained in my third objection.

everyone can see how you did not answered my objection, as it is usual among atheist in this forum, you made an irrelevant comment, that has nothing to do with my claim.


In order to stablish that X is the cause of Y, one does not have to prove HOW X did it.............agree?

if yes, then your third objection has been falsified.

if no then you would have to deny everything, every single scientific truth. (or at least most of them)

I suspect you either didn't read what Ness said, or you somehow don't know what "irrelevant" means. It is 100% relevant to what you said. You claimed that demonstrating how X caused Y is unnecessary for establishing that X indeed caused Y, and that science doesn't work like that. This is a patent falsehood. You absolutely do have to demonstrate the how in science. Science is one of the most rigorous methods of learning about our world there is – indeed, it may very well be the most rigorous method in human history. It's also the most robust as a consequence. You know why? Because demonstrating the how is what it's all about!

You are, without a doubt, the worst pirate apologist I've ever heard of... :?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[leroy]

I suspect you either didn't read what Ness said, or you somehow don't know what "irrelevant" means. It is 100% relevant to what you said. You claimed that demonstrating how X caused Y is unnecessary for establishing that X indeed caused Y, and that science doesn't work like that. This is a patent falsehood. You absolutely do have to demonstrate the how in science. Science is one of the most rigorous methods of learning about our world there is – indeed, it may very well be the most rigorous method in human history. It's also the most robust as a consequence. You know why? Because demonstrating the how is what it's all about!

You are, without a doubt, the worst pirate apologist I've ever heard of... :?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


so by your logic, the universe is not expanding, because we cant explain HOW. this process works

it is perfectly reasonable to say that the universe is expanding, and leave the HOW question for future inquiry.


I am not saying that the HOW question is not important, all I am saying is that it is valid to stablish that X is the cause of Y even if you don't know HOW X did it. This is an uncontroversial statement, only fanatic atheist would reject it,


if we where to drop all the facts, laws, theories etc. just because we don't understand the HOW, we would have to drop almost everything in science, you probably accuse religion for harming science, but nothing harms science more than new atheist and new atheist logic

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:lol:

Oh look, dandan/leroy repsonded multitudes in one day, again. [sarcasm]I wish I was as busy as dandan/leroy.[/sarcasm] I wonder how many times he will respond today.

:lol:

.

[
You have never read A Brief History of Time, thus you have no idea what [Stephen] Hawkins's actual opinion is on this subject.?

well I have read the grant design, where he made similar statements.....

Let us see the quotes to that effect.

However, what Hawkins believes or does not is irrelevant. You are dealing with me, deal with my arguments.

I am just asking an honest question..............according to you what is SH missing? why do most scientists grant that the universe is FT? What are they missing?

Again, seems to have been is not is. Work on your reading comprehension. He is not missing anything.

there is nothing wrong to be against the majority of the expert opinion, but you have to have a reason for your disagreement.

I do not disagree with them. Seems to have been is not is. Work on your reading comprehension.

Says the person that does not see a difference between seems to have been and is.

well, instead of interpreting the quote to fit your own personal preferences, why don't you do research and learn about SH view?

Why do you want me to chase after this red herring? Do you not understand that seems to have been is not is? What is so hard to understand about that?

I never said can't, I said it seems very difficult to conclude something would be fine-tuned if we have only one sample of that thing. Again, you can prove me wrong by actually demonstrating that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. Whenever you are read, I will be happy to look at your evidence

.


well here is my evidence

Examples:
- αg the gravitational force, determines the initial rate of expansion of the universe: a
higher value then that actually observed leads to a collapse of the whole universe on itself
(more or less immediately after its start); however, if the value would be a little bit lower,
there would have been no gravitational aggregation of matter, implying no formation of
galaxies, stars or planets and low complexity of the resulting universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Dandekar/publication/27487135_Why_are_natures_constants_so_fine-tuned_The_case_for_an_escalating_complex_universe/links/0deec516520a8b5d83000000.pdf[/

From the abstract:

Thomas Dandekar et al.[/url]"]Why is our universe so fine-tuned? In this preprint we discuss that this is not a strange accident but that fine-tuned universes can be considered to be exceedingly large if one counts the number of observable different states (i.e. one aspect of the more general preprint http://www.opus-bayern.de/uni-wuerzburg/volltexte/2009/3353/).

Which flies in the face of your earlier claim that fine-tuning implies a narrow range. Thus, is it a narrow range or a large range that fine-tuning could fall into?

Beyond that, the article seems to be suffering from the same mistake you have been this whole time. They have not demonstrated that the gravitational force can be different, nor that changing it means everything else stays the same, leading to these matter-less universes. They are also dealing in a counterfactual.

Furthermore, your own citation talks about how even if somethings were different (see my above quote), we would still have life in this universe. Thus, your own citation does not agree with your claim that life has to exist in a narrow range. As it points out, the cosmological constant and the half-life of proteins could have greatly differed from what we see them now and still have a life prohibiting universe. They concluded this in their counterfactual.

potencial falsifications>

. prove that stars, planets, galaxies would form even if gravity where stronger

. Prove that life could exist without stars galaxies and planets

:facepalm:

As your own citation explains, the cosmological constant could have varied greatly. Thus, any change to gravity could have also lead to a change in that leading to a universe with practically the same properties as we see. However, no one has still shown that the gravitational force can be different. Again, this is the problem with counterfactuals. You do not know that changing the gravitational force will lead to anything different. You do not even know if you can change it. I do hope you have something better than these tired counterfactuals in the future.

what you are describing is what apologetics typically call physical necessity or just necessity, you are correct, maybe there is only 1 winning tiket, maybe there is only 1 possible universe.

That is not at all what I am describing. What I am describing is their assertion about "if these values where slightly off...than yadayaday universe would not permit life". In other words, their argument contains an unwarranted assumption that these values can change in a range they cannot define.

The point for all the data that we have, the odds of all these constants being as they are without a designer is 100%

You will have to forgive dandan/leroy. His reading comprehension is piss poor. Thus, he often argues against a strawman.

 

[Nesslig20]

Yes, YOU did assume that. You said you could prove the range that permits life is narrow and that any slight change would end up with a universe that couldn't sustain life.

narrow doesn't mean improbable.

:facepalm: If you said that the life permitting range is narrow and that MOST of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this range, than it is bloody obvious to anyone (with a degree of comprehensive reading skills) that you mean that ending up with constants that are within this range by chance is improbable.

We know what you are trying to suggest with your assertion about a "narrow life permitting range" and "small change in these values would end up outside this range"

This implies that it is improbable that any small change would end up in this range. That is one major point of the fine tuning argument. Chance alone is too improbable (even though you cannot calculate the odds), therefore a designer is more probable.

You're not fooling anyone here.

I told you before and ill tell you now.
the probability argument only applies if the atheist, agnostic, skeptic or whatever adopts a chance hypothesis.

And as I told you before, the argument of fine tuning includes that very probability argument, regardless wether an atheist adopts a chance hypothesis.

Here is a video about someone presenting the fine tuning argument without responding to an atheist using the chance hypothesis.

At 3:47 you see that they assert that by chance this is so improbable it is practically impossible. Guess how much math they show that backs up their assertion about this "astronomical small chance"? NONE.

They don't because they can't because they don't have the math to calculate any probability.

for example some would argue that the values where given by a stochastic event, for example multiverse theorist believe that there are many universes each one with a different value on each of the forces and parameters. in this case the probability of living in a life permitting universe would be low. therefore in this kind of cases it makes sense to argue about possibilities.

theist don't presuppose that there are many possibilities, chance theorist (including multiverse theorists do)

Theists HAVE to presuppose many different possibilities in order to claim that the odds of the constants as they are coming about by chance is astronomically low, in order to make the fine tuning argument.

Just to bring up my lottery analogy. If someone wants to claim that I won the lottery not by chance, because the chances are so low, then the person has to assume many different possibilities.

If you don't presuppose many different possibilities for the values of either the numbers on my ticket or the values of the constants, then guess what...you cannot say that me winning the lottery or the universe coming about as it is, by chance, is low.

For data that I have, me winning the lottery / the universe having its constants, could be 100%.

The people who use the fine tuning argument do! They say the constants couldn't come about by chance alone, since the odds are so low, thus an intelligent fine tuner is more probable.

yes theist would argue that design is more probably true than chance, but this does not imply that there are only these 2 options.

And that is my fucking point. Theists do assume that design is more probable than chance.

How do you calculate that probability. To go with my analogy, how did you calculate that the probability of me winning the lottery, with a ticket number of 123456789, is lower than me winning the lottery by design?

if an atheist proposes a third option, then the theist most show that design is better than this third option, and if this third option does not relly un chance it would be meaningless to talk about possibilities.............agree?

In that scenario it would, but that is not what WE are talking about. My third objection that I have given to you is about the assumption (that life permitting constants arising by chance is improbable) that is included in the fine tuning argument.

So far, you haven't tried to counter that objection. All you have done is to try avoid this objection by multiple means. Trying to say that probability only comes in to play when atheists use the chance hypothesis, WHILE IN FACT the argument is presented with this assumption of the odds for life permitting constants arising by chance is low, without any atheist using any hypothesis.

Which would mean that the conclusion "goddidit" is not a conclusion that necessarily follows from the argument.

And since we cannot calculate the probability of these constants arising by chance is low (you only have a sample size of 1 universe), theists cannot rule out chance.

granted, no one is saying that God did it, necessarily follows from the argument.

Than the argument would be pointless for theists then. Of course now you are going to say that it points to a designer (not necessarily god wink wink) just like folks form the discovery institute are pretending that intelligent design isn't creationism.

what I would argue is that design is a better explanation that any other explanation that has been proposed. No one is saying that design is the only possible explanation.

Yep, and since the design hypothesis cannot determined to be more likely than chance nor any other potential explanation, the fine tuning argument doesn't hold.

everyone can see how you did not answered my objection, as it is usual among atheist in this forum, you made an irrelevant comment, that has nothing to do with my claim.
In order to stablish that X is the cause of Y, one does not have to prove HOW X did it.............agree?
if yes, then your third objection has been falsified.
if no then you would have to deny everything, every single scientific truth. (or at least most of them)

No I don't agree and I don't agree that I have to deny everything or most scientific truth. As I said, science is a method to explain natural phenomena by proposing models that describe the processes that explains the phenomena observed.

For example, let's pick a phenomenon, gravity (matter attracts matter) why does matter attract matter?
The explanation according to Einsteins theory, objects with mass/energy bends space/time and the curvature results in a force.
(of course the actual explanation is far more complicated)

Now propose another "explanation".....MAGIC!!!

Are these equal? NO, they are not. Why not?

The first one is a model that describes the process, the other doesn't
The first one can be objectively understood and tested independently, the other doesn't.
The first one has explanatory power, the other doesn't.

That is why magic is NOT an explanation, because it doesn't explain anything, despite being frequently used as an excuse to not admit ignorance.

so by your logic, the universe is not expanding, because we cant explain HOW. this process works
it is perfectly reasonable to say that the universe is expanding, and leave the HOW question for future inquiry.
I am not saying that the HOW question is not important, all I am saying is that it is valid to stablish that X is the cause of Y even if you don't know HOW X did it. This is an uncontroversial statement, only fanatic atheist would reject it,
if we where to drop all the facts, laws, theories etc. just because we don't understand the HOW, we would have to drop almost everything in science, you probably accuse religion for harming science, but nothing harms science more than new atheist and new atheist logic

You are missing the point. We can accept that a phenomenon like the expanding universe is happening without having an explanation for it, BUT you cannot propose an explanation if the explanation doesn't include the HOW.

The HOW is what the explanation IS!!
That is why MAGIC isn't an explanation since it doesn't include the HOW!!

Just to nail this point down even further. A scientific explanation has to start as an hypothesis, I hope you agree with this, otherwise you have no idea how science even works. If you do, look up what something must have in order to qualify as a hypothesis.

Einstein didn't imagine stuff. He did thought experiments based on established physics and scientists tested this ideas and confirmed it, THEN it became a theory.

well you can perform a thought experiment, and determine what would happen is gravity would have been 1% stronger.

What about THIS part

thought experiments.....based on established physics and scientists tested this ideas and confirmed it, THEN it became a theory.

Do not pretend that what you are doing is remotely similar to what Einstein did. For one thing, Einstein didn't do thought experiments which messed up the physical constants. Einsteins ideas based on his thought experiments are demonstrated. You cannot demonstrate the idea that gravity can be 1% stronger, or weaker. This is an assumption that is unwarranted.

Yes, BUT they cannot calculate what the probability of gravity (as it is in our universe) by chance, based on that simulation. THAT is the difference.

granted, I never said that one can use simulations, (imagine stuff) to calculate probabilities.

That is the whole point!! You cannot calculate the probability. Thus you cannot say chance is less probable than anything else, including design.

the only point that I am making is that you don't need to have other universes in order to determine what would happen if gravity would have been 1% stronger................agree?

If that is the only point you are making, than you are not following the points I am making regarding the fine tuning argument.

Again, to pull out my analogy.

You can determine what would happen IF my lottery ticket number was different, thus I would not win the lottery. However that doesn't mean the probability of me winning the lottery is low. That is the whole point.

Theists always presuppose that the probability is low when using the fine tuning argument. Just look up William Lane Graig using that argument during the first round of a debate (without any atheist defending a chance position) and you will see him say that the constants arising by chance is so low it is practically impossible or something along those lines.

But he cannot calculate the probability thus you don't have an argument.

No, William Lane Craig always mentions 3 possibilities.

Now there are only three ways to account for this remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for intelligent life: physical necessity, chance, or design

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/design-from-fine-tuning#ixzz4XdVYgFAx

Click on that very link and read the FIRST paragraph

The fine-tuning argument is one of the primary arguments Dr. Craig offers as evidence for God’s existence. Science has shown that intelligent life could not exist in our universe apart from an extremely precise set of initial conditions that are unlikely to have occurred by chance. Therefore one may conclude that the universe was designed for life. In this question, Dr. Craig responds to claims made by atheist Richard Carrier seeking to debunk the fine-tuning argument. He rebuts Carrier’s assertion that a Theory of Everything would make fine-tuning inevitable and argues that even positing multiple universes does not weaken the implication of a cosmic Designer.

There you go. It already assumes that chance is unlikely. It already assumes that my ticket number could have been a different number. This is the assumption I am objecting to. How does he know it is unlikely?? By imagining different values for the constants? By imagining different lottery numbers?

 

[leroy]

:lol:
Oh look, dandan/leroy repsonded multitudes in one day, again. I wish I was as busy as dandan/leroy. I wonder how many times he will respond today.

...

sometimes I have the impresión that you are like 12yo.....


given that this forum is time consuming, I decided to participate on 1 topic at the time. why are you making a such a big deal with that?

for example Dragan has not participated in this this conversation in the last 6 or 7 weeks, and you don't seem to make a big deal.

it seems to me that this is an other case of atheist hypocrisy, where it is ok if an atheist do it, but it is wrong if a theist do it.

I have read the grant design, where he made similar statements.....

Let us see the quotes to that effect. .

no problem, this is a quote form SH in the grand desing

If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms

if you what more details you can reed this article
http://crossexamined.org/fine-tuning-particles-support-life/
it is just a blog, but I am sure you will learn something

if you what a more robust source, you can reed this article
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

but this article what written by a theist, if you feel that you most reject the article by default feel free to reed the grand design, or a brief history of time

or do research in any source that you consider reliable.

Again, seems to have been is not is. Work on your reading comprehension. He is not missing anything

well then reed the book, understand SH s view and after you realize that he grants FT, please answer my question......

according to you what is SH missing? why do most scientists grant that the universe is FT? What are they missing ?

this is the complete quote form SH, anyone can see that he is granting that the universe is FT, you wont admit it, because you are not honest enough to do it.

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of these numbers from theory – we have to find them by observation. It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded.

but feel free to read the complete chapter, or the complete book (http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf)

according to you what is SH missing? why do most scientists grant that the universe is FT? What are they missing ?

lets how long does it take for you to answer this question.

Why do you want me to chase after this red herring? Do you not understand that seems to have been is not is? What is so hard to understand about that?

it is not a red hearing.

I made a statement......SH grants that the universe is FT

You asked for evince

I provide the evidence, I provided a quote where he clearly and unambiguously grants that the universe is FT

You, instead of admitting that I was correct, you decided to interpret the quote in your favor and to fit your own personal preferences, you haven't done any research on SH view on the topic, and you haven't presented any evidence that suggests the oposite, all you have is your dishonest straw man understand on the quote.

Which flies in the face of your earlier claim that fine-tuning implies a narrow range. Thus, is it a narrow range or a large range that fine-tuning could fall into?

As it is usual you have no idea on what you are talking about, no where in the article does it say that the rage is not narrow., as it is usual you qupted something that does nothing to support your assertion,

Beyond that, the article seems to be suffering from the same mistake you have been this whole time. They have not demonstrated that the gravitational force can be different,

and once again you made the same stupid assertion even though I already explained that even if the gravitational force could have not been different, that would not imply that the universe is not FT.

nowhere in the definition of FT does it says or implies that FT implies that it could have been different.

nor that changing it means everything else stays the same, leading to these matter-less universes. They are also dealing in a counterfactual

granted, if you can prove that changing 1 value would change everything else in the exact proportion needed to create an other combination of values that would produce a life permitting universe. you will prove that the universe is not FT...........but we both know that you are not going to present any evidence for that.

Furthermore, your own citation talks about how even if somethings were different (see my above quote), we would still have life in this universe. Thus, your own citation does not agree with your claim that life has to exist in a narrow range. As it points out, the cosmological constant and the half-life of proteins could have greatly differed from what we see them now and still have a life prohibiting universe. They concluded this in their counterfactual

the point that the article is making is that this universe is over tuned, it has more fine tuning that a life permitting universe would require. but it is still true that life permitting universes can only exist with a narrow rage it just that a universe like ours are in a narrower rage.

You do not even know if you can change it. I do hope you have something better than these tired counterfactuals in the future.

No, I can not do any better, one can simulate what would happen if we change this values, and see how these simulated universes (worlds) look like, if a considerable majority of worlds is life prohibiting, one can conclude that the life permitting rage is narrow. and therefore conclude that life permitting universes require FT.

this counterfactuals are not different from what climate scientist do when they simulate what would happen if the temperature of the planet increases 6c, and it is not different from what physicist do when they simulate what would happen if the sun evolves in a red star. even your beloved theory of evolution is based on counterfactuals....if you accept other scientific facts even if they are based on counterfactuals, why are you making an arbitrary exception with FT.

based on this counterfactuals that majority of scientists including most atheist, have concluded that the universes is FT. This counterfactuals where sufficient to convince them, and this kind of counterfactuals are sufficient to convince you in other areas, you arbitrarily decided to make an exception with FT, and you haven't done anything to justify this exception.

together with the fact that you haven't provided any evidence for the contrary, I think it is pretty reasonable to conclude that the universe is FT.


of course no one is saying that this counterfactuals prove that the universe is FT with a 100% certainty, but this counterfactuals are enough to prove FT with a high degree of certainty, and the majority of scientists would agree.

 

[leroy]

:facepalm: If you said that the life permitting range is narrow and that MOST of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this range, than it is bloody obvious to anyone (with a degree of comprehensive reading skills) that you mean that ending up with constants that are within this range by chance is improbable. [

I am honestly not following,

yes if you argue that we are here just by coincidence, then yes our existence would be improbable. for example if you believe in a multiverse, if you believe that each multiverse has different values, and if you argue that each combination of values is equally probable then only a minority of universes would be life permitting.

I agree, one can not calculate the probability of something based on simulations.

Chance alone is too improbable (even though you cannot calculate the odds), therefore a designer is more probable.

granted, I agree that logic would be flawed, but no one is using it,

I am not saying that one should accept design because it is more probable than chance, as you said before it is impossible to calculate possibilities.


there are many reasons why I think design is a better explanation than chance. But the main reason would be that Chance hypothesis have been falsified by the Bolzman Brain Paradox, and no one has ever falsified design.

this fact by itself makes design a better hypothesis than chance
.

So far, you haven't tried to counter that objection. All you have done is to try avoid this objection by multiple means. Trying to say that probability only comes in to play when atheists use the chance hypothesis, WHILE IN FACT the argument is presented with this assumption of the odds for life permitting constants arising by chance is low, without any atheist using any hypothesis.

again, the chance card should only be used if the atheist argues that the values where given by a stochastic event.

it would be relevant to define, what do you mean with chance hypothesis?

for me a chance hypothesis would be any hypothesis that presupposes that there are many possible worlds, and that the majority of possible worlds are life prohibiting. for me someone who does not makes this presuppositions is not defending a chance hypothesis.

given this definition, most versions of the multiverse hypothesis would be chance hypothesis.

No I don't agree and I don't agree that I have to deny everything or most scientific truth. As I said, science is a method to explain natural phenomena by proposing models that describe the processes that explains the phenomena observed.

again, in order to stablish that X is the cause for Y you don't need to explain how X did it............please stop pretending that you disagree with this modest and uncontroversial statement.

For example, let's pick a phenomenon, gravity (matter attracts matter) why does matter attract matter?
The explanation according to Einsteins theory, objects with mass/energy bends space/time and the curvature results in a force.
(of course the actual explanation is far more complicated)

yes and for example you don't need to know how matter attracts matter, in order to stablish the fact that matter attracts matter.

everyone knew that matter attracts matter since long before Einstein, (long before the HOW question was answered)



in other words, you can not reject the design hypothesis, just because we cant explain how he did it

 

[Nesslig20]

:facepalm: If you said that the life permitting range is narrow and that MOST of the times any small change in these values would end up producing a universe outside this range, than it is bloody obvious to anyone (with a degree of comprehensive reading skills) that you mean that ending up with constants that are within this range by chance is improbable. [

I am honestly not following,

I know that.

yes if you argue that we are here just by coincidence, then yes our existence would be improbable.

But I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that the assertion

"The odds of these life permitting constants coming about by chance, is so improbable, it is practically impossible."

that is included in the fine tuning argument, Is unwarranted. You don't have the data to calculate the probability of these constants coming about by chance, thus you cannot conclude it is improbable. There is no data to conclude that the chance is not 100% so how can someone using the fine tuning argument assert that it is improbable??

for example if you believe in a multiverse,

Which I don't. But I think the multi verse is a more parsimonious explanation rather than a cosmic wizard, because we have already an example of a universe, but no magic wizard.

if you believe that each multiverse has different values, and if you argue that each combination of values is equally probable then only a minority of universes would be life permitting.

But that is just the point. You assume that different values are possible and you assume that each value is equally possible. What if the values that we see is the ONLY possible values or that there are two possible values in which case the chance that our universe is life permitting is 1/2. But without knowing what the possible values are or wether each value is equally likely, the odds cannot be assessed thus the fine tuning argument includes an unwarranted assumption.

I agree, one can not calculate the probability of something based on simulations.

Chance alone is too improbable (even though you cannot calculate the odds), therefore a designer is more probable.

granted, I agree that logic would be flawed, but no one is using it,

That is what the fine tuning argument is, or partially. I have seen a form of the fine tuning argument that goes like this. (it is the video I have shown you earlier)

There are three explanations for the life permitting constants of the universe.
1. Necessity
2. Chance
3. Design

What the argument did is asserting that option 2 is not a good explanation, since and I quote
"the probability involved are so ridiculously remote as the put the fine tuning well beyond the reach of chance."

What probability?? How do you make that calculation??

Of course they reject option one, because there is no evidence to support option 1 and thus since they have excluded 1 and 2, 3 wins by default.

I am not saying that one should accept design because it is more probable than chance, as you said before it is impossible to calculate possibilities.

So you agree that the fine tuning argument does not support the conclusion of design? Because you are now going against the premise that design is more likely than chance, which is part of the argument.

there are many reasons why I think design is a better explanation than chance. But the main reason would be that Chance hypothesis have been falsified by the Bolzman Brain Paradox, and no one has ever falsified design.

The Boltzmann brain paradox asserts that such self aware brains floating around in a high entropy universe is more likely than the universe with brains plus allot of other complex ordered stuff we observe. Which I don't agree with, for the same reason I don't agree with the assertion within the fine tuning argument that chance is improbable.

How can you calculate the probability that a Boltzmann brain is more likely? What about instead of a Boltzmann brain fluctuating into existence just like that, you have a universe with a simple state of beginning fluctuating into existence, from which these complex things emerge, via the physical interactions between matter, like gravity forming galaxies including stars and planets and such.

Which is more likely, well a Boltzmann brain is more complex than the earliest state of the universe when it had no form and the four interactions when unified. If the argument is "more complex things are less likely to fluctuate into existence" than the latter one would be more likely - a universe with a simple state of beginning.

So you jumped form one probability argument to another probability argument.
This has been pointed out to you before (just like always)

The BBP completely disproves any chance hypothesis, we have a sample of 4 so disproving 1 hypothesis makes all other hypothesis much more probably than before.

:lol:

I know I said I was going to cut you off, but I have to point this out, because it made me laugh. Dragan Glas and Akamia already pointed out that Boltzmann Brain Paradox is itself a chance hypothesis. You are essentially saying chance cannot work, because chance works.

:lol:

Or you can look at Sean Carroll's work, that proposes a solution to the Boltzmann problem.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/
De Sitter Space Without Quantum Fluctuations
Kimberly K. Boddy, Sean M. Carroll, and Jason Pollack

We argue that, under certain plausible assumptions, de Sitter space settles into a quiescent vacuum in which there are no quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations require time-dependent histories of out-of-equilibrium recording devices, which are absent in stationary states. For a massive scalar field in a fixed de Sitter background, the cosmic no-hair theorem implies that the state of the patch approaches the vacuum, where there are no fluctuations. We argue that an analogous conclusion holds whenever a patch of de Sitter is embedded in a larger theory with an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, including semiclassical quantum gravity with false vacua or complementarity in theories with at least one Minkowski vacuum. This reasoning provides an escape from the Boltzmann brain problem in such theories. It also implies that vacuum states do not uptunnel to higher-energy vacua and that perturbations do not decohere while slow-roll inflation occurs, suggesting that eternal inflation is much less common than often supposed. On the other hand, if a de Sitter patch is a closed system with a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, there will be Poincaré recurrences and Boltzmann fluctuations into lower-entropy states. Our analysis does not alter the conventional understanding of the origin of density fluctuations from primordial inflation, since reheating naturally generates a high-entropy environment and leads to decoherence.

And also, because the design argument isn't falsified, doesn't mean it is more likely. There are things that are unfalsifiable, yet not considered to be valid explanations.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability

So far, you haven't tried to counter that objection. All you have done is to try avoid this objection by multiple means. Trying to say that probability only comes in to play when atheists use the chance hypothesis, WHILE IN FACT the argument is presented with this assumption of the odds for life permitting constants arising by chance is low, without any atheist using any hypothesis.

again, the chance card should only be used if the atheist argues that the values where given by a stochastic event.

Again, the chance card IS used, wether or not an atheist argues about anything.
Look at the video I showed your previously, they use that chance card as part of the argument.

it would be relevant to define, what do you mean with chance hypothesis?

I didn't brought up the chance hypothesis, you did or at least the fine tuning argument includes an attempt to refute the chance hypothesis by asserting that the odds are too low to be a good explanation.

for me a chance hypothesis would be any hypothesis that presupposes that there are many possible worlds, and that the majority of possible worlds are life prohibiting. for me someone who does not makes this presuppositions is not defending a chance hypothesis.

However, the ones using the fine tuning argument ARE presupposing that many different values for each constants are possible.

This is the point you keep missing, the atheist are not using the chance hypothesis (at least not me) the theists trying to dismiss the chance hypothesis by asserting low odds for it, and than concluding design is more likely.

No I don't agree and I don't agree that I have to deny everything or most scientific truth. As I said, science is a method to explain natural phenomena by proposing models that describe the processes that explains the phenomena observed.

again, in order to stablish that X is the cause for Y you don't need to explain how X did it............please stop pretending that you disagree with this modest and uncontroversial statement.

I don't pretend. I really don't agree with that statement. And it is not uncontroversial, the opposite is uncontroversial. The way science works is by proposing a model (a theory) that explains the phenomena we observe.

The theory includes the HOW (the mechanism) and the HOW is the explanation.
Without the HOW, you don't have a theory, you don't have an explanation.

Again, this is why MAGIC is NOT an explanation. Since it doesn't include the HOW.

For example, let's pick a phenomenon, gravity (matter attracts matter) why does matter attract matter?
The explanation according to Einsteins theory, objects with mass/energy bends space/time and the curvature results in a force.
(of course the actual explanation is far more complicated)

yes and for example you don't need to know how matter attracts matter, in order to stablish the fact that matter attracts matter. Everyone knew that matter attracts matter since long before Einstein, (long before the HOW question was answered)

Fallacy of equivocation: phenomenon =/= explanation

We can accept that a phenomenon occurs (like matter attracts matter) without having to have an explanation for it.
We CANNOT propose an explanation FOR that phenomenon without the HOW!!

Accepting the reality of a phenomenon without having an explanation for it, is not the same as proposing a vacuous explanation that doesn't include the HOW.

I have explained this before.

You are missing the point. We can accept that a phenomenon like the expanding universe is happening without having an explanation for it, BUT you cannot propose an explanation if the explanation doesn't include the HOW.

in other words, you can not reject the design hypothesis, just because we cant explain how he did it

I can reject it on the basis that the design hypothesis doesn't count as an explanation BECAUSE the absence of the HOW.
The HOW is the explanation. Without it, you don't have an explanation.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:lol:
Oh look, dandan/leroy repsonded multitudes in one day, again. I wish I was as busy as dandan/leroy. I wonder how many times he will respond today.

...

sometimes I have the impresión that you are like 12yo.....

The feeling is mutual.

given that this forum is time consuming, I decided to participate on 1 topic at the time. why are you making a such a big deal with that?

I just find it funny that you claimed to be so busy, yet are able to reply multiple times a day. Essentially, your actions do not follow from your words.

for example Dragan has not participated in this this conversation in the last 6 or 7 weeks, and you don't seem to make a big deal.

Dragan Glas never claimed to be so busy while demonstrating that he obviously was not. Tis a difference, agree?

it seems to me that this is an other case of atheist hypocrisy, where it is ok if an atheist do it, but it is wrong if a theist do it.

:facepalm:

No one else said that they were so busy yet still posted several times in a day. You did that dandan/leroy. If anyone else would have done something so obviously contradictory, I would have pointed it out and laughed as well. Stop pretending that you are being persecuted because you are a theist. You are not, you are being made fun of because you claimed one thing and your actions demonstrate that not to be true.

I have read the grant design, where he made similar statements.....

Let us see the quotes to that effect. .

no problem, this is a quote form SH in the grand desing

If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms

if you what more details you can reed this article
http://crossexamined.org/fine-tuning-particles-support-life/
it is just a blog, but I am sure you will learn something

:facepalm:

I ask for a quote from a book to demonstrate that you actually read the book and you give me a blog post wherein someone else quoted the book. You still have not demonstrated that you read the book, just that you can use Google to find quotes to suit your needs.

Beyond that, Hawking is dealing in a counterfactual as well, if that quote is not being mined. Again, I will not deal in them.

if you what a more robust source, you can reed this article
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

but this article what written by a theist, if you feel that you most reject the article by default feel free to reed the grand design, or a brief history of time

Or you can just quote the book directly like I asked you too. I have no doubt that there are articles out there about fine-tuning and they all seem to be based on the same logical fallacy of depending on a counterfactual.

or do research in any source that you consider reliable.

I did do that. That is what my blog post is about. Since all you can do is try and deal in counterfactuals, as I predicted in it, than it seems I have done my homework.

Again, seems to have been is not is. Work on your reading comprehension. He is not missing anything

well then reed the book, understand SH s view and after you realize that he grants FT, please answer my question......

according to you what is SH missing? why do most scientists grant that the universe is FT? What are they missing ?

As I said, if he does indeed grant that (and you have not demonstrated that once), than he is doing the same think you and all your sources have done. You are all dealing in counterfactuals.

this is the complete quote form SH, anyone can see that he is granting that the universe is FT, you wont admit it, because you are not honest enough to do it.

The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. We cannot, at the moment at least, predict the values of these numbers from theory – we have to find them by observation. It may be that one day we shall discover a complete unified theory that predicts them all, but it is also possible that some or all of them vary from universe to universe or within a single universe. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars either would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded.

but feel free to read the complete chapter, or the complete book (http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf)

[Emphasis added]

:facepalm:

Again, seem to have been is not is, work on your reading comprehension. Basically, that reads to me like what I have been saying from the beginning. We both agree on what the initial conditions of the observable universe were. Now, you need to demonstrate that those initial conditions are indeed fine-tuned.

However, thank you for the link to his book. Something to sink my teeth into when I am not busy.

according to you what is SH missing? why do most scientists grant that the universe is FT? What are they missing ?

lets how long does it take for you to answer this question.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Again, seems to have been is not is. Work on your reading comprehension. He is not missing anything.

What is the point of asking a question that was already answered? Perhaps if you took the time to actually read my post and not skim it, you would have already seen my answer.

Why do you want me to chase after this red herring? Do you not understand that seems to have been is not is? What is so hard to understand about that?

it is not a red hearing.

I made a statement......SH grants that the universe is FT

You asked for evince

I provide the evidence, I provided a quote where he clearly and unambiguously grants that the universe is FT

No you did not. Again, seem to have been is not is. Work on your reading comprehension. This is just getting sad.

You, instead of admitting that I was correct, you decided to interpret the quote in your favor and to fit your own personal preferences, you haven't done any research on SH view on the topic, and you haven't presented any evidence that suggests the oposite, all you have is your dishonest straw man understand on the quote.

Do you honestly believe that seem to have been is is? Please explain. I mean, I know English is not your native tongue, so I am genuinely curious to know if you actually think seem to have been is the same as saying is at this point.

Which flies in the face of your earlier claim that fine-tuning implies a narrow range. Thus, is it a narrow range or a large range that fine-tuning could fall into?

As it is usual you have no idea on what you are talking about, no where in the article does it say that the rage is not narrow., as it is usual you qupted something that does nothing to support your assertion,

:docpalm:

It does say a lot that you cannot include what I quoted from your source.

Thomas Dandekar et al.[/url]"]Why is our universe so fine-tuned? In this preprint we discuss that this is not a strange accident but that fine-tuned universes can be considered to be exceedingly large if one counts the number of observable different states (i.e. one aspect of the more general preprint http://www.opus-bayern.de/uni-wuerzburg/volltexte/2009/3353/).

[Emphasis added]

There it is for all to see, again. Thomas Dandekar et al, states it is large. You state it is narrow. You must have also missed in the article wherein it talks about how there is a large range for different things, such as the half-life of the protein.

Beyond that, the article seems to be suffering from the same mistake you have been this whole time. They have not demonstrated that the gravitational force can be different,

and once again you made the same stupid assertion even though I already explained that even if the gravitational force could have not been different, that would not imply that the universe is not FT.

nowhere in the definition of FT does it says or implies that FT implies that it could have been different.

If one cannot show that the gravitational force can be different than any talk of changing it (your whole argument) is asinine. Beyond that, if it cannot be changed, than how could it be tuned? In addition, if The Fine-Tuning Argument is not implying that things could be different, than fine-tuning would just boil down to stating what the initial conditions were, making it a useless term, since it would be indistinguishable from initial conditions.

nor that changing it means everything else stays the same, leading to these matter-less universes. They are also dealing in a counterfactual

granted, if you can prove that changing 1 value would change everything else in the exact proportion needed to create an other combination of values that would produce a life permitting universe. you will prove that the universe is not FT...........but we both know that you are not going to present any evidence for that.

I do not have to, because there is nothing to suggest that you can change anything, nor that changing one thing will not lead to other things changing. Again, my counterfactual of things changing to make the universe appear to be the same is just as good as your counterfactual that things would be totally different. Without evidence, we are just playing with our imaginations, as Nesslig20 already pointed out.

Furthermore, your own citation talks about how even if somethings were different (see my above quote), we would still have life in this universe. Thus, your own citation does not agree with your claim that life has to exist in a narrow range. As it points out, the cosmological constant and the half-life of proteins could have greatly differed from what we see them now and still have a life prohibiting universe. They concluded this in their counterfactual

the point that the article is making is that this universe is over tuned, it has more fine tuning that a life permitting universe would require. but it is still true that life permitting universes can only exist with a narrow rage it just that a universe like ours are in a narrower rage.

Now our universe is over-tuned? Neither you or the article demonstrated that this universe was fine-tuned in the first place. However, Thomas Dandekar et al. stated when talking about this universe being over-tuned that the range for life was large. Again, they pointed out that the cosmological constant and the half-life of proteins could have been greatly different and we still would have had life. That was how Thomas Dandekar et al. were concluding that our universe was over-tuned, because the range was so large (according to them) and we were in a universe that was better than most for life. However, this flies in the face of what you were saying about the range being narrow. Did you even read your source?

You do not even know if you can change it. I do hope you have something better than these tired counterfactuals in the future.

No, I can not do any better, one can simulate what would happen if we change this values, and see how these simulated universes (worlds) look like, if a considerable majority of worlds is life prohibiting, one can conclude that the life permitting rage is narrow. and therefore conclude that life permitting universes require FT.

:facepalm:

You cannot conclude that from a simulation. You can hypothesize that. In order to conclude something, you need evidence. However, I am glad that we both finally agree that you have had nothing but counterfactuals and you cannot do better to hold up your whole argument.

this counterfactuals are not different from what climate scientist do when they simulate what would happen if the temperature of the planet increases 6c, and it is not different from what physicist do when they simulate what would happen if the sun evolves in a red star. even your beloved theory of evolution is based on counterfactuals....if you accept other scientific facts even if they are based on counterfactuals, why are you making an arbitrary exception with FT.

:facepalm:

As I said, no one is concluding anything based on those counterfactuals. They are used to create hypotheses that are later tested in the real world. You brought up a great example with climate change. Since at least the 60s, scientists have hypothesized that if we release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, it would start to warm. We have now run the experiment and demonstrated that their hypothesis were correct. Thus, if you want to call your counterfactual a hypothesis, go for it. However, claiming that you can conclude anything from it is something you cannot do. It would also help if you started talking about ways to test your hypothesis, because simply forming one gets us nowhere.

based on this counterfactuals that majority of scientists including most atheist, have concluded that the universes is FT. This counterfactuals where sufficient to convince them, and this kind of counterfactuals are sufficient to convince you in other areas, you arbitrarily decided to make an exception with FT, and you haven't done anything to justify this exception.

You honestly still have not shown one atheist that accept the universe is fine-tuned. I know you think Hawking does, but that just speaks to your poor reading comprehension. As I said, you have yourself a hypothesis. Now you need to come up with a way to test it. With the other examples you talked about, they gave examples of possible tests for their hypotheses. You have not come close to this step.

together with the fact that you haven't provided any evidence for the contrary, I think it is pretty reasonable to conclude that the universe is FT.

I also did not disprove the existence of fairies, does that mean it is reasonable to conclude fairies exist? Again, stop trying to shift your burden. You are making the claim to knowledge, you provide evidence that backs it up. One cannot simply proclaim things to be.

of course no one is saying that this counterfactuals prove that the universe is FT with a 100% certainty, but this counterfactuals are enough to prove FT with a high degree of certainty, and the majority of scientists would agree.

:facepalm:

High degree of certainty? You are putting forth a hypothesis, not giving a way to actually test or demonstrate this hypothesis in the real world, than claiming that you have a high degree of certainty about it?

:lol:

 

[leroy]

[

But I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that the assertion

"The odds of these life permitting constants coming about by chance, is so improbable, it is practically impossible."

I agree this comment one should only come out if the "atehist" adopts a chance hypothesis., ......I already told you what I mean by chance hypothesis,

the reason why I said that I am not following is because we seem to agree on that point, if we both agree then this conversation is meaningless.

Which I don't. But I think the multi verse is a more parsimonious explanation rather than a cosmic wizard, because we have already an example of a universe, but no magic wizard.

I think that design is demonstrably a better hypothesis than multiverse. but since you don't believe in multiverses I see no point in defending my assertion.

why don't you provide your best explanation for the FT, and explain why is that explanation better than design?

[
But that is just the point. You assume that different values are possible

I am not making the assumption, chance theorist do.
.
if you use the definition of chance hypothesis that I used, then by definition other values have to be possible.

if someone does not uses my definition then I would not call him a chance theorist and I would not use any argument based on the improbability of bla bla bla....

How can you calculate the probability that a Boltzmann brain is more likely?

If you adopt a chance hypothesis, (as I defined) the BB would be more probable.

if you don't adopt a chance hypothesis, then the BB argument would be meaningless..........agree?

Or you can look at Sean Carroll's work, that proposes a solution to the Boltzmann problem.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/
De Sitter Space Without Quantum Fluctuations
Kimberly K. Boddy, Sean M. Carroll, and Jason Pollack
[

I could comment on that, but since you are not defending any chance hypothesis, I don't see the point.

.

This is the point you keep missing, the atheist are not using the chance hypothesis (at least not me)

well this is why I don't see the relevance of this discussion.

I don't pretend. I really don't agree with that statement. And it is not uncontroversial, the opposite is uncontroversial. The way science works is by proposing a model (a theory) that explains the phenomena we observe.

For example it is valid to say that the expansion of the universe is the best explanation for red shift. even if one doesn't know HOW, or what causes the expansion.

this is analogous to a designer is the best explanation for FT, even if one doesn't know HOW the designer did it.

We can accept that a phenomenon occurs (like matter attracts matter) without having to have an explanation for it.
We CANNOT propose an explanation FOR that phenomenon without the HOW!!

[/quote]

We can accept that a phenomenon occurs ( like a designer FT the cosmos ) without having to have an explanation for it.
We CANNOT propose an explanation FOR that phenomenon without the HOW

well I would agree with this statement, do you agree?

 

[Nesslig20]

But I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that the assertion
"The odds of these life permitting constants coming about by chance, is so improbable, it is practically impossible."

I agree this comment one should only come out if the "atehist" adopts a chance hypothesis., ......I already told you what I mean by chance hypothesis,
the reason why I said that I am not following is because we seem to agree on that point, if we both agree then this conversation is meaningless.

Then we both agree that the fine tuning argument contains an unwarranted assumption.

Which I don't. But I think the multi verse is a more parsimonious explanation rather than a cosmic wizard, because we have already an example of a universe, but no magic wizard.

I think that design is demonstrably a better hypothesis than multiverse. but since you don't believe in multiverses I see no point in defending my assertion.

You don't have to defend your assertion? Quit an admission.

Design is demonstrably NOT a better hypothesis. For one thing, it doesn't even count as an hypothesis since it cannot be falsified. Neither does the multi verse but I didn't claim it was a better hypothesis.

I think that a multi verse is more parsimonious because we know that there is at least one universe.
People once assumed that the earth and the sun were unique, the earth is the only word and there is only one sun.
Now we know there are more worlds and that every dot in the sky is a star like the sun, more often allot bigger.
People once assumed that the sun is the only star with planets orbiting around it, now we have discovered hundreds of exoplanets.
People once assumed that our galaxy is the whole universe, but now we know there are thousands of galaxies out there each with billions of stars and countless worlds.
Why should we think there is only one universe?

However, we have no example of a cosmic designer that exists outside space and even before time (nor any hint that such a thing can even exist). And assuming that there are more than just one of something is less of a stretch than assuming there is something for which there is nothing comparable to it.

why don't you provide your best explanation for the FT, and explain why is that explanation better than design?

Well I have already done that with the multiverse by reason it is more parsimonious - occam's razor basically.
But I don't have to. Even if I say that fine tuning is not explained, the design "hypothesis" (emphasis on the quotes) still has no legs to stand on.
Not explained ain't equal explained by magic....oh wait.....sorry...sorry...."design".

God of the gaps ain't an explanation.

My main problem with the fine tuning argument is the assumed conclusion it contains.
Asking "Explain the fine tuning" is a logical fallacy called begging the question.
What makes you tink it is fine tuned and for what is it fine tuned, for life?? That is another unwarranted assumption that is contradicted by the very nature of the universe. It ain't very hospitable for life as us. The universe is more efficient in producing black holes, so why not concluding that the universe is fine tuned for that very purpose?


This is my 6th and main objection to the fine tuning argument.

6. Is the universe really finely tuned for life?
The immediate problem I had with the fine tuning argument when I first heard is is by asking the question to myself, is the universe really finely tuned for me or life in general?
I knew enough about the nature of the universe (looking at the big picture) that this was definitely not the case.

“Most places in the universe will kill life instantly—instantly! People say “Oh, the forces of nature are just right for life.” Excuse me. Just look at the volume of the universe where you can’t live. You will die instantly.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


The universe is hostile to life as we know it. Most, and I mean most to the extreme 99,999999999999999 etc %, of the universe is a lethal radiation filled vacuum at near absolute zero kelvin, you won't survive a few minutes and if you managed to survive after losing consciousness by asphyxiation and then being pulled back into a space ship, you would face the likely hood of getting cancer or getting acute radiation sickness from being exposed to lethal radiation (and acute radiation sickness isn't a good way to go, you wished they would have left you behind in the vacuum of space to die quickly and painless). Well that depends on wether you where inside a magnetic field of a planet, but of course most of the universe isn't inside a magnetic field that shields off radiation.
One of the few things about the universe that might be considered beneficial to us is the fact that the material needed for life is fairly common, well not really, of the total of the mass and energy that the universe contains only a fraction is the type of stuff (atoms) we are made off.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Elemental_abundance_and_nuclear_binding_energy
But of those atoms, Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen are the most abundant in order. Hydrogen, Oxygen for water are the most common elements in the universe with the exception of helium. Also Carbon and Nitrogen are also common.
However those elements with the exception of hydrogen, needed to be produced by nuclear fusion in stars and that is highly inefficient. The universe started out with mostly hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%) by mass and it remains largely the same today, which is one of the pieces of evidence for the big bang theory. Full explanation here http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/ Most of the atomic matter in the universe are stellar clouds and most won't ever become part of a star and when a star dies not all of it becomes heavier elements and those stars must first go super nova to spread those elements, which is needed for life, throughout the universe, again inefficient. And it is also not a good idea to have a process like supernova which is needed for life but can be harmful to life if you get to close to one. And supernova are more efficient into producing black holes rather then life, and black holes are also things you don't want to get close to, which is why some say with justification that if the universe was finely tuned it is much easier to say it was tuned to create black holes rather then life. Most of the atomic matter that isn't gas clouds are stars with a few rocky and gas objects orbiting around them (after enough nuclear fusion and supernova), but of course most stars don't harbor planets with life.
To make the analogy, imagine a green house the size of a whole city but the condition inside greenhouse gas only allows one tiny plant to grow, who would argue that this green house is finely tuned for the plant?
If the universe was finely tuned then the fine tuner had the idea of being very lazy and very wasteful. He tuned the universe to start out as a dense contracted vacuum balloon with mostly hydrogen helium gas that expands into infinity and he hoped that some of those hydrogen helium would condense in stars and that enough stars would form to produce the elements needed for life and also hoped that some of those material produced after fusion and supernova would coalesce in solar systems and hoped that some of those solar system would have planets capable of supporting life after billions of years and that very fraction of the fraction of the fraction of the universe is the end goal of literally everything. And this end products shrinks down to nothingness when zoomed out to the respect of even the single galaxy it is in and that galaxy shrinks down to nothingness compared to the scale of the cosmos making it hardly significant when looking at the big picture. It becomes rather silly to suggest that this insignificant piece of star dust that we and our planet are, is somehow the reason why the universe exists and that anything else which his almost everything is just irrelevant leftovers.
And the earth itself is also not finely tuned for life, well unless you are something like a tardigrade but not us certainly. We need dry land on and most of earth is covered with water (salt water) and we need fresh water in order to survive and most water is again salt water and most fresh water is frozen solid and most liquid fresh water is infested with pathogens thus you need to boil it first. Also I've heard that the atmosphere contains oxygen and without it we are going to die which is true but oxygen is also (counter intuitively) toxic to us. Aerobic metabolism creates free radicals that causes cancer.
Also we need food and extracting food from the environment is not that convenient. We need to kill life for us to exists and that include killing the plants we eat and most things we eat right now are genetically engineered through artificial selection by us, but before the days of big, sweet, juicy, seedless fruit we had small often tasteless fruit full of though indigestible fibers and seeds.
What makes the world comfortable to you right now was finely tuned by those who came before us or those who are maintaining it right now like building comfortable climate controlled houses with fresh water coming out of tubes and cold places to store food and places to get more food. And before that, people had a though time surviving often dying of things we now avoid by going to the doctor or going to the supermarket or the dentist (wisdom teeth!).
The universe doesn't seem to be finely tuned for life at all, rather by looking at the 4 billion year history of life on earth, it is the environment that finely tunes life to adapt and those that couldn't (the majority of life) went extinct. Thus the fine tuner not only hoped that some of the star dust would be able to sustain life but he also hoped that some of the life would survive the 4 billion year long history riddled with extinctions.
To suggest that the universe is finely tuned for life, one must first ignore the true state of the universe and its history. 

But that is just the point. You assume that different values are possible

I am not making the assumption, chance theorist do.

Those who are using the fine tuning argument do.

if you use the definition of chance hypothesis that I used, then by definition other values have to be possible.

But that is unwarranted, thus the assumption that the fine tuning argument uses is unwarranted and you agree to that.

How can you calculate the probability that a Boltzmann brain is more likely?

If you adopt a chance hypothesis, (as I defined) the BB would be more probable.

How did you calculated that probability?? You previously said that you agree with me that assuming a probability without any data is unwarranted, yet you are making the same mistake.

if you don't adopt a chance hypothesis, then the BB argument would be meaningless..........agree?

Or you can look at Sean Carroll's work, that proposes a solution to the Boltzmann problem.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/05/05/squelching-boltzmann-brains-and-maybe-eternal-inflation/
De Sitter Space Without Quantum Fluctuations
Kimberly K. Boddy, Sean M. Carroll, and Jason Pollack
[

I could comment on that, but since you are not defending any chance hypothesis, I don't see the point.

You said that the BB falsifies the chance hypothesis, yet when I showed you something that flies in the face of your position, you don't seem to be interested in defending this position.
This really doesn't come as a surprise to me anymore.

.
This is the point you keep missing, the atheist are not using the chance hypothesis (at least not me)

well this is why I don't see the relevance of this discussion.

You don't see the relevance of the fine tuning argument?? I don't think you realize that the fine tuning argument INCLUDES the very assumption you agree that this is unwarranted.

I don't pretend. I really don't agree with that statement. And it is not uncontroversial, the opposite is uncontroversial. The way science works is by proposing a model (a theory) that explains the phenomena we observe.

For example it is valid to say that the expansion of the universe is the best explanation for red shift. even if one doesn't know HOW, or what causes the expansion.

We know how the expansion of the universe explains the red shift phenomenon. That is how we know the universe is expanding.
We don't know why the universe is expanding since we don't have an explanation for that. Notice the difference between "red shift is explained by universal expansion" and "universal expansion is unexplained"

You don't seem to understand the difference between accepting an observed phenomenon and proposing an explanation for a phenomenon.

this is analogous to a designer is the best explanation for FT, even if one doesn't know HOW the designer did it.

Wrong, we know that the expanding universe is a valid explanation for red shift since it includes the HOW.
The expanding space causes the light to increase its wave length as it travels through space, becoming red shifted.

Your hypothesis doesn't include the how. The HOW is the explanation!

A proper analogy would be asserting that the universal expansion is best explained by a designer - even if one doesn't know how a designer did it.
Which is just as absurd.

We can accept that a phenomenon occurs (like matter attracts matter) without having to have an explanation for it.
We CANNOT propose an explanation FOR that phenomenon without the HOW!!

We can accept that a phenomenon occurs ( like a designer FT the cosmos ) without having to have an explanation for it.
We CANNOT propose an explanation FOR that phenomenon without the HOW

Woah wait!! Are you saying that a designer for the cosmos is a phenomenon?
Please put forward your observation of this designer making a universe.

Aside from the sarcasm, you don't know what counts as a phenomenon. It is something that is observed. We have observed matter attracting matter, thus that counts as a phenomenon. A designer for the cosmos is not observed.

well I would agree with this statement, do you agree?

No, it is absolutely asinine to assert that a designer for the cosmos is a phenomenon.

 

[leroy]

[..


Do you honestly believe that seem to have been is is? Please explain. I mean, I know English is not your native tongue, so I am genuinely curious to know if you actually think seem to have been is the same as saying is at this point


.

in order to make a valid point you would have to prove that seem to have been necessarily implies that is not but since you made very clear that you wont prove any of your assertions, I wont expect you to make an exception here.


If I say something like, The book seems to have been published what I am implying is that the book was published, or at least that I have good reasons to assume that the book was published. this is at least a possible interpretation for the statement The book seems to have been published if you what to make a point you would have to show that the statement necessarily implies that the book was not published.


given the context in which the paragraph was written, it is obvious to SH implied that the universe is FT, he even provided examples of what he meant.

...................................

apart from that I don't have much to add, to the conversation, these Counterfactuals are enough to convince the majority of experts that the universe is FT, and even you grant some statements that are based on the same type of counterfactuals. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT and you haven provided any good reasons for making such an exception.

As I said, no one is concluding anything based on those counterfactuals. They are used to create hypotheses that are later tested in the real world. You brought up a great example with climate change. Since at least the 60s, scientists have hypothesized that if we release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, it would start to warm. We have now run the experiment and demonstrated that their hypothesis were correct. Thus, if you want to call your counterfactual a hypothesis, go for it. However, claiming that you can conclude anything from it is something you cannot do. It would also help if you started talking about ways to test your hypothesis, because simply forming one gets us nowhere.

however statements like if the temperature increases X degrees the ice in the poles will melt and San Francisco would be completely flooded are based on counterfactuals and you don't seem to have any problem with that. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT.

Again, this is the problem with counterfactuals. You do not know that changing the gravitational force will lead to anything different

.


and you don't know that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to something different, maybe increasing CO2 would trigger a process, caused by an unknown mechanism that would cool the planet and compensate the effect of global warming.


this sounds stupid, but is the same kind of logic that you are using,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

[..


Do you honestly believe that seem to have been is is? Please explain. I mean, I know English is not your native tongue, so I am genuinely curious to know if you actually think seem to have been is the same as saying is at this point


.

in order to make a valid point you would have to prove that seem to have been necessarily implies that is not but since you made very clear that you wont prove any of your assertions, I wont expect you to make an exception here.

:facepalm:

I never said seems to have been means is not, you really need to stop thinking in dichotomies or just work on your reading comprehension. However, do you honestly think that seems to have been is the same as saying is?

If I say something like, The book seems to have been published what I am implying is that the book was published, or at least that I have good reasons to assume that the book was published. this is at least a possible interpretation for the statement The book seems to have been published if you what to make a point you would have to show that the statement necessarily implies that the book was not published.

:facepalm:

Again, I never said seems to have been means is not. Your analogy even demonstrates this. If someone says "the book seems to have been publish, they are stating an opinion to which they do not know the truth. When someone says a book is published, than they actually know it was published. See the difference? Again, stop thinking in dichotomies.

given the context in which the paragraph was written, it is obvious to SH implied that the universe is FT, he even provided examples of what he meant.

Nope. The very next line (that you kept leaving out) says:

Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flung back into space when the stars explode.

This reads to me like he is poking fun at the counterfactual nature of the fine-tuning. Thus, if you are going to conclude that Hawking accepts fine-tuning, you must also conclude that Hawking believes fine-tuning is not necessary for intelligent life. One might as well use that quote to conclude that Hawking is arguing for Yahweh based on what I just quoted.

apart from that I don't have much to add, to the conversation, these Counterfactuals are enough to convince the majority of experts that the universe is FT, and even you grant some statements that are based on the same type of counterfactuals. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT and you haven provided any good reasons for making such an exception.

:docpalm:

Back to skimming my post I see.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]As I said, no one is concluding anything based on those counterfactuals. They are used to create hypotheses that are later tested in the real world. You brought up a great example with climate change. Since at least the 60s, scientists have hypothesized that if we release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, it would start to warm. We have now run the experiment and demonstrated that their hypothesis were correct. Thus, if you want to call your counterfactual a hypothesis, go for it. However, claiming that you can conclude anything from it is something you cannot do. It would also help if you started talking about ways to test your hypothesis, because simply forming one gets us nowhere.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]You honestly still have not shown one atheist that accept the universe is fine-tuned. I know you think Hawking does, but that just speaks to your poor reading comprehension. As I said, you have yourself a hypothesis. Now you need to come up with a way to test it. With the other examples you talked about, they gave examples of possible tests for their hypotheses. You have not come close to this step.

Both of those statements (from the post you are supposed to be addressing) address your point adequately.

As I said, no one is concluding anything based on those counterfactuals. They are used to create hypotheses that are later tested in the real world. You brought up a great example with climate change. Since at least the 60s, scientists have hypothesized that if we release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, it would start to warm. We have now run the experiment and demonstrated that their hypothesis were correct. Thus, if you want to call your counterfactual a hypothesis, go for it. However, claiming that you can conclude anything from it is something you cannot do. It would also help if you started talking about ways to test your hypothesis, because simply forming one gets us nowhere.

however statements like if the temperature increases X degrees the ice in the poles will melt and San Francisco would be completely flooded are based on counterfactuals and you don't seem to have any problem with that. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Ice melts at higher temperatures, agree?

Adding more liquid water to a volume will cause it to rise, agree?

You can follow the logic based on those observed facts from point A to point Z. Your whole argument is based on things that you have admitted cannot be demonstrated. You cannot demonstrate that gravity can be different, nor can you demonstrate that by simply changing gravity, nothing else about the initial conditions would change. You are just playing with your imagination. Again, trying proposing ways to demonstrate your hypothesis instead of just declaring it to be the case.

Again, this is the problem with counterfactuals. You do not know that changing the gravitational force will lead to anything different

.


and you don't know that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to something different, maybe increasing CO2 would trigger a process, caused by an unknown mechanism that would cool the planet and compensate the effect of global warming.

You are right. They did not know that. That is why it was just a hypothesis. However, we have ran the experiment and showed that it does. The hilarious thing about this is that those early scientists were in part wrong about how much CO2 was needed to start to heat the atmosphere, because they were not counting on the oceans observing carbon and heat. See how hypotheses need to be tested in the real world before one can have any sort of certainty?

this sounds stupid, but is the same kind of logic that you are using,

I am not, as demonstrated above.

 

[leroy]

[

You said that the BB falsifies the chance hypothesis, yet when I showed you something that flies in the face of your position, you don't seem to be interested in defending this position.
This really doesn't come as a surprise to me anymore

.

You don't have to defend your assertion? Quit an admission

the point that I was trying to make is that since you are not defending the multiverse hypothesis, nor any other chance hypothesis I thought it would be irrelevant for me to explain why design is a better model, I thought (and still thinking) that it would be more meaningull if you provide a hypothesis that you actually support and discuss on weather if that hypothesis is better than design or not.

Well I have already done that with the multiverse by reason it is more parsimonious - occam's razor basically.

Ok so you are arguing that multiverse is a better explanation than design, and I disagree, so lets have a discussion on that, even though I think it would be better if you defend a hypothesis that you actually support.

Or you can look at Sean Carroll's work, that proposes a solution to the Boltzmann problem.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... inflation/

What SC is saying is that in the absence of observers, quantum fluctuations can not ocurre, therefore QF did not ocurre during inflation, therefore BB would have not come in to exístanse. that is very interesting, but is irrelevant and unrelated to the BBP that I am proposing.



explaining the Bolzman Brain Paradox.... (BBP)



1 If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and each posible universe is equally probable, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist

2 these universes would be vastly more abundant that universe like ours.

3 In some of these universes there would be individuals that are mentally ill, with hallucinations, that imagine themselves living in a complex universe with many stars, galaxies (low entropy) even though in reality they live in a simpler universe (with higher entropy) and with only 1 star,


the paradox states that these universes (as describe in number 3) are vastly more abundant than universes with many stars galaxies and low entropy, therefore if you observe yourself in a universe with low entropy, many stars, galaxies etc. you are almost certainly a mentally ill individual that lives in a simpler universe and that imagines himself in a complex universe.

an analogy, would be, if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row, it would be vastly more probable that you are just hallucinating, than to say that you actually won the lottery 100 in a row by chance.


what about Boltzmann Brains?

it is argued, that you don't even need a star and a planet in order for observers to exist, all you need is a single brain that fluctuates in to existence, with false memories and hallucinations of being in a complex universe. But this is just a bonus, the paradox stands, even without this brains.



If you accept that implications of the multiverse theory, you have to accept that you are a BB (or an individual as describen in point 3) therefore your observation of being in a complex universe has to be an illusion, therefore your observations are not a result of multiverses and chance but a result of an illusion.

in other words the BBP falsifies the multiverse hypothesis, or any other chance hypothesis.

since no one has falsified design and multiverse is falsified by the BBP, then design is demonstrably a better explanation than design. any hypothesis that has not been falsified is better than a falsified hypothesis.

Aside from the sarcasm, you don't know what counts as a phenomenon. It is something that is observed. We have observed matter attracting matter, thus that counts as a phenomenon. A designer for the cosmos is not observed

ok, whatever... perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by phenomenon,


the point is that one can stablish that the cause of X is Y even if you don't know how X did it.

for example
one can stablish that dark energy causes the expansion of the universe even if you cant explain how

one can stablish that pyramids where caused by Egyptians, even if you don't know how.

one can stablish that a UFO where caused by aliens, even if you don't know how

and one can stablish that the FT of the cosmos was caused by God, even if you don't know how.

knowing HOW is not a necessary requirement in order to stablish a cause

The immediate problem I had with the fine tuning argument when I first heard is is by asking the question to myself, is the universe really finely tuned for me or life in general?...

the problem with that objection is that it is based on a strawman. no one is arguing that the universe was FT to optimize the amount of living things......what the argument states is that the building blocks of life (atoms, stars, matter etc.) can only exist if multiple independent constants and inicial conditions have very precise values.

 

[Nesslig20]

[You said that the BB falsifies the chance hypothesis, yet when I showed you something that flies in the face of your position, you don't seem to be interested in defending this position.
This really doesn't come as a surprise to me anymore.

You don't have to defend your assertion? Quit an admission

the point that I was trying to make is that since you are not defending the multiverse hypothesis, nor any other chance hypothesis I thought it would be irrelevant for me to explain why design is a better model, I thought (and still thinking) that it would be more meaningull if you provide a hypothesis that you actually support and discuss on weather if that hypothesis is better than design or not.

If I am not mistaken, you are the one using the fine tuning argument that includes the assumption that there are two or three options for explaining the fine tuning argument:
1. Necessity
2. Chance
3. Design
And that design is the best option over the others to explain the fine tuning.

If you are not willing to defend your notion of a designer (which is not a model, nor does it count as a hypothesis) than you are not willing to defend the fine tuning argument.

If a theists is not willing to defend the fine tuning argument, that makes the truth of the title of this topic more obvious.

Perhaps you are defending your own version of the fine tuning argument.
You should formulate your premises then such it is clear what your argument is.

Well I have already done that with the multiverse by reason it is more parsimonious - occam's razor basically.

Ok so you are arguing that multiverse is a better explanation than design, and I disagree, so lets have a discussion on that, even though I think it would be better if you defend a hypothesis that you actually support.

I don't have to defend a hypothesis in order for your notion of a designer to be invalid. Your position fails in the absence of any alternative.
Otherwise that would be a God of the Gaps fallacy.

I say that the Multi-verse makes less assumptions than the "explanation" you want to propose.

Or you can look at Sean Carroll's work, that proposes a solution to the Boltzmann problem.
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... inflation/

What SC is saying is that in the absence of observers, quantum fluctuations can not ocurre, therefore QF did not ocurre during inflation, therefore BB would have not come in to exístanse. that is very interesting, but is irrelevant and unrelated to the BBP that I am proposing.

explaining the Bolzman Brain Paradox.... (BBP)

1 If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and each posible universe is equally probable, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist

2 these universes would be vastly more abundant that universe like ours.

3 In some of these universes there would be individuals that are mentally ill, with hallucinations, that imagine themselves living in a complex universe with many stars, galaxies (low entropy) even though in reality they live in a simpler universe (with higher entropy) and with only 1 star,

the paradox states that these universes (as describe in number 3) are vastly more abundant than universes with many stars galaxies and low entropy, therefore if you observe yourself in a universe with low entropy, many stars, galaxies etc. you are almost certainly a mentally ill individual that lives in a simpler universe and that imagines himself in a complex universe.

an analogy, would be, if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row, it would be vastly more probable that you are just hallucinating, than to say that you actually won the lottery 100 in a row by chance.

Premise 1 and 2 contradict each other.

If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and each posible universe is equally probable, than we obviously not conclude that simpler universe are more abundant. If all possible universes are equally likely, then simple universes are equally likely than complex universes.

If you change your premise 1 into this:

1 If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and more simpler universe are more likely to exist, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist

This would solve the contradiction. But then I would not agree with the statement that simpler universe like one with only one sun and one earth, are more likely than the one we are in. Unwarranted assumption of probability yet again.
And permise 3 has the same problem. Why are universes that contain life, with hallucinating agents, more abundant (more likely) than those with agents that aren't hallucinating?
This is especially the problem when you have to assume that most universes that contains life are so perfect that even agents that are constantly hallucinating are able to survive. Why aren't universes that are inhospitable to life more abundant, thus life in most universes wouldn't last very long if it was constantly hallucinating and only allow life that are getting reliable information about there surroundings that enables them to survive.

what about Boltzmann Brains?

it is argued, that you don't even need a star and a planet in order for observers to exist, all you need is a single brain that fluctuates in to existence, with false memories and hallucinations of being in a complex universe. But this is just a bonus, the paradox stands, even without this brains.

All you have done is replacing Boltzmann brains with universes that contains hallucinating agents. The same unwarranted assumption is still being made.

If you accept that implications of the multiverse theory, you have to accept that you are a BB (or an individual as describen in point 3) therefore your observation of being in a complex universe has to be an illusion.

First, by your argument, I don't have to accept that I am a BB. I have to accept that I am more likely a BB.
But still I don't accept the implications that you believe. What if universes like our own are more likely and Boltzmann brains (or hallucinating agents) are unlikely? You haven't done any calculations to indicate that this is an implication, so I don't accept it.

, therefore your observations are not a result of multiverses and chance but a result of an illusion. in other words the BBP falsifies the multiverse hypothesis, or any other chance hypothesis.

Non sequitur, even if I accept that I am more likely a BB or even definitely a BB. That doesn't mean the multi verse proposition is wrong.
If I am hallucinating, that doesn't mean the multiverse is not true. These are not incompatible.

since no one has falsified design and multiverse is falsified by the BBP, then design is demonstrably a better explanation than design. any hypothesis that has not been falsified is better than a falsified hypothesis.

But you haven't falsified it. You have made assumptions about probability (numerous times) and made a non-sequitur at the end that if you accept you are a BB then the multi verse hypothesis is wrong.

I still see no reason why design is a better hypothesis.

Aside from the sarcasm, you don't know what counts as a phenomenon. It is something that is observed. We have observed matter attracting matter, thus that counts as a phenomenon. A designer for the cosmos is not observed

ok, whatever... perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by phenomenon,

Most definitely

the point is that one can stablish that the cause of X is Y even if you don't know how X did it.

Wrong. You can't for the same reason you can't establish magic as an explanation. (I chanced "cause" back to "explanation" since these are not the same things).
An explanation MUST contain the HOW, because the HOW is the explanation.

for example
one can stablish that dark energy causes the expansion of the universe even if you cant explain how

Dark energy is merely the label for the apparent force or energy that is accelerating the expansion of the universe.
Dark energy is quite like Gravity before Einstein. Just like dark matter is merely a label for the force that accelerates the expansion of the universe, gravity was merely the label for the force that made matter attract each other. But what gravity was, we didn't know back than.

Newton came up with the inverse square law, describing gravity as if it was a field of attractive force that weakens with distance (which is incorrect). But it was still accurate to a degree such we still use it for instances for which time dilation has little effect.

Einstein came up with the explanation that gravity is the curvature of spacetime.
Now we wait for someone to explain the force (i.e. dark energy) that accelerates the expansion of the universe.

So dark energy is the label we applied to a force we yet don't understand like the label gravity was.


And before you are going to say it. A designer isn't merely "just a label for something you don't understand".
It clearly has baggage that excludes options unlike the label dark energy.

one can stablish that pyramids where caused by Egyptians, even if you don't know how.

They build it and we can determine how they build it??
http://www.livescience.com/45285-how-egyptians-moved-pyramid-stones.html

one can stablish that a UFO where caused by aliens, even if you don't know how

Definition of a UFO: Unidentified Flying Object (emphasis on the unidentified).

and one can stablish that the FT of the cosmos was caused by God, even if you don't know how.

One cannot explain anything by magic. Magic ain't an explanation.

knowing HOW is not a necessary requirement in order to stablish a cause

The immediate problem I had with the fine tuning argument when I first heard is is by asking the question to myself, is the universe really finely tuned for me or life in general?...

the problem with that objection is that it is based on a strawman. no one is arguing that the universe was FT to optimize the amount of living things......what the argument states is that the building blocks of life (atoms, stars, matter etc.) can only exist if multiple independent constants and inicial conditions have very precise values.

You said that the constants were fine tuned to be life permitting, thus you argue that the universe is fined tuned for life, which is not by observation.
Why isn't the universe fine tuned for making black holes, supernovae, or just the existence of hydrogen itself and life is merely a by product.
But that is what you are now saying in a sense, that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of all these things there are not life, but even the fine tuning for the purpose of stars, atoms, etc still results in the laughable inefficient production of and the conditions that barely allow life to exist.

The universe is NOT fine tuned for life. If anything it is fine tuned for black holes (that argument can be made more easily).
Life is fine tuned by the universe or more accurately, by the environment that make up a fraction of the universe that barely allows life to survive.