Again the truth is that although our universe has living conditions for us it wasn't like that for majority of it's existence. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, and the other elements of the chemical periodic table were not produced until billions of years after TBBT. And also living conditions of universe will change over billions of years so it will again be unlivable.

That universe is so "fine tuned" for us that it "made" us after existing for 14 billion years can only make sense to Christians that are very desperate to maintain their delusions.

(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: No, more like:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Before you jump on any of these, remember that the argument is an inductive argument: in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

It's also a disjunct syllogism, the -least- reliable form of valid argument, even if the premises -are- sound, that doesn't conclude "god".  I'm not sure why you think it's all that useful, even if you think it's true.  Would you also accept this valid argument?  

The fine tuning of the universe is due to either design, chance, or neccessity.
The fine tuning of the universe is not due to design or chance.
Therefore the fine tuning of the universe is due to necessity.

I'm just trying to gauge your level of confidence in the form of the syllogism.  

Quote:In your example, you said between 1 and -1 to permit life. What are all the possible values that would not permit life? Let's get real examples (from the video transcript)

Multiply those very small number by the other probabilities of life permitting ranges give the overall possible ranges of any give constant and you have a number so small that there are so many zeroes in it that there are not enough molecules in the universe to cover the odds.

I think I'm seeing a pattern.  You make assertions regarding probabilities and possible values and, when those assertions are dismantled fundamentally...regardless of values or probabilities, you ask someone to show you the math that -you- never did.  You linked the math....over and over again.  Check your own links for the lambda value.  We know that there's a life permitting range (we don't know that it could have been at any of those ranges, ofc, our value may be the only possible value, but it hardly matters to the subject of our discussion).  We know that the bottom end of that range would be more "life permitting".  We know...that we...are not at the bottom end of that range.  

If you trust the argument above, and you refer to the constants you linked...then gods a shitty tuner...constrained by physical law.  \

What's the problem?  Do you want the argument you offered and the links you provided as demonstration to be true or not?

(March 28, 2017 at 9:55 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: No, more like:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Before you jump on any of these, remember that the argument is an inductive argument: in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

It's also a disjunct syllogism, the -least- reliable form of valid argument, even if the premises -are- sound, that doesn't conclude "god".  I'm not sure why you think it's all that useful, even if you think it's true.  Would you also accept this valid argument?  

The fine tuning of the universe is due to either design, chance, or neccessity.
The fine tuning of the universe is not due to design or chance.
Therefore the fine tuning of the universe is due to necessity.

I'm just trying to gauge your level of confidence in the form of the syllogism.  

I never addressed necessity. My understanding is that the laws of physics do not dictate the constants we are discussing, so they each could have been different over a fairly wide range.  Therefore they are not the way they are due to necessity. 

In your version, you would need to have reasons why design as less likely than the others.

(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 4:52 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: You're mistaking an effect for a cause. The universe isnt the way it is to accomodate the exisetence of humanity (as evidenced by the fact that 99.9% of the universe is hostile to humanity), but we exist because the universe is the way it is.

And the question is, why, against all odds is the universe the way it is?

In what way is it "against all odds" that the universe turned out the way it did? Ignoring the fact that you can't rule out necessity as a possible reason the universe is the way it is, the universe had to turn out "some way" and the way it did turn out is not special in any regard with respect to the universe itself. It's special to you because you're a life form and you have an emotional investment in existing, but as far as universes go, there's nothing unique about this one. You assume a teleological stance with respect to life, but this ignores the fact that life in this universe is opportunistic; it didn't have to be, it conformed itself to what was available. All that the fine tuning argument says is that if things had been different, then things would have been different. Where you get the existence of a god out of that, I don't know.

(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: Multiply those very small number by the other probabilities of life permitting ranges given the overall possible ranges of any given constant and you have a number so small that there are so many zeroes in it that there are not enough molecules in the universe to cover the odds.

Using a frequentist view of probability, the odds are given how many times life would occur given a number of trials. Unfortunately for your argument, life conforms to the conditions existing, not the other way around, so you have no way of specifying what a "life permitting range" is. You're simply assuming that it's close to the conditions which currently exist, which is circular. Victor Stenger has done simulations in which the parameters of the universe are adjusted and seeing what kind of universe results, and in over half of the simulations, stable universes resulted. So you're simply tailoring your region to your argument. That's a faulty argument. (I also note that you claim there to be "possible ranges" of the given constants. How you know what a possible range for these constants is constitutes a remarkable fact, as science doesn't even know what suitable ranges for these constants are. Care to share where you got this astounding information from?)

(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 4:52 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: You're mistaking an effect for a cause. The universe isnt the way it is to accomodate the exisetence of humanity (as evidenced by the fact that 99.9% of the universe is hostile to humanity), but we exist because the universe is the way it is.

And the question is, why, against all odds is the universe the way it is? In my white/black ball example above, we had to get 5 black balls in a row. If you saw that happen, you would swear that the drawing was rigged. Why am I irrational to assume that about the universe?

The odds are quite likely not nowhere near as farfetched as you think. For one thing, as Rhythm has already pointed out, there are alterations to the fundamental constants that would make a universe more amenable to life. For another a lot of the constants tend to work together, thus if you change (for example) the heat at the core of a star the pressure variants would likely adjust accordingly in order to keep the fusion fires burning. Thirdly, even if universes with the right conditions were rare, and needed to be finely tuned, there are an infinite number of different tunings out there, so even if 0.01% of them able to support life will crop up millions of universes, all likely to be clustered in groups (thus increasing the likelihood somewhat, as you'd only have to hit the right area). And for a final piece, even if the universe is that unlikely (which it is not, the p-value of a universe happening which created life happening is exactly 1, as we exist) that comes nowhere to bringing us to god in any shape or form.

Look, we both know you're not interested in a proper debate here, other wise you'd not be bringing up the same stupid PRATTs you always bring up. So why not just drop the pretence of having a reason for your religious beliefs and acknowledge that they are simply that.

The 3rd strongest argument is the problem of evil.

SteveII Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Strong fine-tuning is a thought experiment in a universe where it's not even known that the constants involved could have been different, that they aren't interrelated, etc. We're not in the position of being able to declare the odds are long...we don't even know if there is more than one 'lottery ticket', or if there are lots with the same numbers on them. We can only speculate.

Can you share a link by a physicist/cosmologist that  discusses the universe's initial constants could have been a large range of values and still been life-permitting? Everything I have ever read says the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned...e#Examples.

Maybe they can be a wide range of values. Maybe they can't. No one knows. We don't know why the values couldn't have been anything at all (though there's highly suggestive math that a universe with an energy budget at or near zero, which may be all possible universes that can come from a 'big bang' would have a very constrained range of constants) and we don't know they could. How about you find a cosmologist willing to say they know the values could have been different and by how much?

Reread your Wikipedia link and pay attention to all the 'ifs'. If the constants could have been different, there's still problems with jumping to conclusions about why they aren't, but it has not been established that they could have been different, it's only been established that if they were slightly different in certain ways life as we know it would be impossible. It hasn't been established that the constants were random.

---

SteveII Wrote:Your fragility of life point does more to support the theist who thinks that God created the entire universe for us than it does as an argument against God.

What need does an omnipotent being have to house its creatures in a hospitable environment? Couldn't God have made us perfectly happy living on the sun or in space by simple fiat?

Solar scientist: How can we live on the sun like this, our bodies should instantly vaporize?
Solar theist: Tis the will of Yahweh!
Solar scientist: I guess it must be something like that, we can't possibly have naturally developed in this environment.

Your version of God seems to have chosen to create the only type of universe where he isn't required to explain the presence of life as we know it.

---

SteveII Wrote:No, more like:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

Before you jump on any of these, remember that the argument is an inductive argument: in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

2. Mere assertion.

---

SteveII Wrote:I never addressed necessity. My understanding is that the laws of physics do not dictate the constants we are discussing, so they each could have been different over a fairly wide range.  Therefore they are not the way they are due to necessity. 

In your version, you would need to have reasons why design as less likely than the others.

Your syllogism declares that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe to permit life is not due to necessity. You seem to have different standards for 'never addressed' than I do.

(March 28, 2017 at 10:56 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: And the question is, why, against all odds is the universe the way it is?

In what way is it "against all odds" that the universe turned out the way it did?  Ignoring the fact that you can't rule out necessity as a possible reason the universe is the way it is, the universe had to turn out "some way" and the way it did turn out is not special in any regard with respect to the universe itself.  It's special to you because you're a life form and you have an emotional investment in existing, but as far as universes go, there's nothing unique about this one.  You assume a teleological stance with respect to life, but this ignores the fact that life in this universe is opportunistic; it didn't have to be, it conformed itself to what was available.  All that the fine tuning argument says is that if things had been different, then things would have been different.  Where you get the existence of a god out of that, I don't know.

If it is astronomically improbably that the universe turned out the way it did, I think it is reasonable to infer a designer. If you want to go with chance, you certainly are welcome to. 

Quote:

(March 28, 2017 at 8:35 am)SteveII Wrote: Multiply those very small number by the other probabilities of life permitting ranges given the overall possible ranges of any given constant and you have a number so small that there are so many zeroes in it that there are not enough molecules in the universe to cover the odds.

Using a frequentist view of probability, the odds are given how many times life would occur given a number of trials.  Unfortunately for your argument, life conforms to the conditions existing, not the other way around, so you have no way of specifying what a "life permitting range" is.  You're simply assuming that it's close to the conditions which currently exist, which is circular.  Victor Stenger has done simulations in which the parameters of the universe are adjusted and seeing what kind of universe results, and in over half of the simulations, stable universes resulted.  So you're simply tailoring your region to your argument.  That's a faulty argument. (I also note that you claim there to be "possible ranges" of the given constants.  How you know what a possible range for these constants is constitutes a remarkable fact, as science doesn't even know what suitable ranges for these constants are.  Care to share where you got this astounding information from?)

I'm not a physicist but it does seem that Stenger cherry-picked his scenario. If you care to see a detailed look, click here where Luke Barnes, a post-doctoral researcher on cosmology says in conclusion: 

Quote:Allow me to state my conclusions with the kind of candour only allowed in the blogosphere: MonkeyGod is bollocks. It is worse than irrelevant – it is misleading. It is a distraction, encouraging us to simply look the other way, to condescending dismiss the evidence for the fine-tuning of the universe for life. It is utter garbage, thinly concealed behind a veil of mathematics.

It is interesting that I cannot find any critique of the Monkey God simulator for some years now. If you have something that would support its findings, please paste link.

"I think it's reasonable to infer a designer" is not a rational inference.  Do you also think it's reasonable to infer a lottery number designer when someone wins?  Some fine tuner of lottery numbers..setting up just so, in order that Ms. Sally Mae Parks of Wichita Falls wins the jackpot?

Wait SteveII if you believe universe is billions of years old then how come your Christian pal Neo-Scholastic believes universe is 6000 years old? Is he simply delusional or it doesn't matter how you interpret the Bible as long as you believe in something?