(March 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.

But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?

(March 29, 2017 at 2:24 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.

But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?

There general excuse will be "but we don't take it literally (sometimes)

Or" It doesn't matter what good "

(March 28, 2017 at 5:40 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.

How many universes have you seen, again?  

In any case, "I think it's reasonable to infer that it was fixed" is not a rational inference, nor is "fixing" something that only a designer can do.  Points for being consistently less than rational, I guess?

In order for my conclusion to be irrational, you would need to provide alternative reasons for landing the winning ticket despite the odds having enough zeros as the molecules in the universe (or half that, of halve that again--I don't care--it does not matter). If you say, "I don't know" then my reasoning that it was fixed is better than that. At least I have math providing good evidence that it was.

---

(March 28, 2017 at 8:37 pm)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 8:28 am)SteveII Wrote: You can get a brief overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned...e#Examples

Regarding your question about why so fragile. Life is extremely complex in its requirements. It is not clear why we should expect the right combination of elements, heat, gravity, radiation, and self-contained planetary feedback loops to be a common occurrence.

Even if the allowable ranges of the values of constants that lead to a universe with structure (atoms, stars etc.) is very small, the fact that these constants need to have very specific values does not make it unlikely for them to have these values. You are ascribing a low probability to the universe having its specific constants without justification. It may be that certain values of constants are more likely than others. Or, what if the range of possible constants for all possible universes is quite small to begin with? It's not necessarily true that the constants can range from minus to plus infinity.

The fine-tuning argument fails on the basis that it cannot establish the purported low probability of the universe acquiring its constants. For all we know the probability could be 1.

If you think there is not 100% established mind-boggling low probability, then you do not understand the issues. Physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe is finely tuned. Martin Rees, who wrote the list above (from the wikipedia article), has impeccable credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

In fact it is so well established that the multiverse theory was dreamed up to account for it!!

---

(March 29, 2017 at 2:24 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(March 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: What are you talking about? As in my example of billions of white balls and one black ball in a drawing and I not only see the black ball come down the shoot, but it does so 5 times in a row in 5 subsequent drawings, I think it very reasonable to infer that it was fixed.

But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?

Augustine 1700 years ago did not take the Genesis account as a literal 6 days. If you think you are making a point, it is a tired-out one with no real meaning. Congrats.

For theists, the existence of a Necessary Being is strongly suggested by the apparent contingent features on which the the universe seems to depend. The skeptical objection to our stance, appealing to chance, is quite odd and is really just a way for them to have their cake and eat it too. That approach allows the skeptic to acknowledge the contingency of the physical world while tacitly relying on "laws of chance" that must transcend the universe in order to constrain its possibilities. This is just another way to bring a Necessary Being in by the backdoor while expressly denying there is one. The other skeptical objection is to consider the features of the physical universe brute facts, a simple assertion that some facts about the world are not subject to the principle of sufficient reason.

(March 29, 2017 at 8:53 am)SteveII Wrote:

---

(March 28, 2017 at 5:40 pm)Khemikal Wrote: How many universes have you seen, again?  

In any case, "I think it's reasonable to infer that it was fixed" is not a rational inference, nor is "fixing" something that only a designer can do.  Points for being consistently less than rational, I guess?

In order for my conclusion to be irrational, you would need to provide alternative reasons for landing the winning ticket despite the odds having enough zeros as the molecules in the universe (or half that, of halve that again--I don't care--it does not matter). If you say, "I don't know" then my reasoning that it was fixed is better than that. At least I have math providing good evidence that it was.

---

(March 28, 2017 at 8:37 pm)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote: Even if the allowable ranges of the values of constants that lead to a universe with structure (atoms, stars etc.) is very small, the fact that these constants need to have very specific values does not make it unlikely for them to have these values. You are ascribing a low probability to the universe having its specific constants without justification. It may be that certain values of constants are more likely than others. Or, what if the range of possible constants for all possible universes is quite small to begin with? It's not necessarily true that the constants can range from minus to plus infinity.

The fine-tuning argument fails on the basis that it cannot establish the purported low probability of the universe acquiring its constants. For all we know the probability could be 1.

If you think there is not 100% established mind-boggling low probability, then you do not understand the issues. Physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe is finely tuned. Martin Rees, who wrote the list above (from the wikipedia article), has impeccable credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

In fact it is so well established that the multiverse theory was dreamed up to account for it!!

---

(March 29, 2017 at 2:24 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: But you forgot to tell us which god are you promoting with your theory? It certainly can't be the god from the Bible since Bible is specific that YHVH created universe in 6 days: it not only is written as days but it is also emphasized with careful statement "the evening and the morning". So what is that feeble god (compared to YHVH) that needed 14 billion years to create as that you're promoting?

Augustine 1700 years ago did not take the Genesis account as a literal 6 days. If you think you are making a point, it is a tired-out one with no real meaning. Congrats.

---

The other thing in your example, is that you are only giving one drawing (although with incredibly high odds against).  I think that it can be granted that improbable things can and do occur.  However the way that statistics works, is that they do not happen consistently.  Now in the next drawing, you switch it up, and again, you get the exact combination required.  This happens again and again.   At some point, it's reasonable to expect that something is up. 

I would also agree, that we could be incorrect or mistaken on some of the values cited for fine tuning.  We could be wrong on some of our assumptions, or perhaps it couldn't be any other way. We could be wrong on a number of things, where science is concerned.  However; I think that it is better to go with reason and evidence rather than an argument from ignorance (again, this isn't just one instance we are talking about) . Sometimes it seems that so called skeptics; appear to be stacking the deck; which makes it difficult to take claims of skepticism seriously.

Also, the debate on the 6 days of creation goes back much farther than Augustine, back to ancient Jewish thinkers.

(March 29, 2017 at 8:53 am)SteveII Wrote: If you think there is not 100% established mind-boggling low probability, then you do not understand the issues. Physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe is finely tuned. Martin Rees, who wrote the list above (from the wikipedia article), has impeccable credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

In fact it is so well established that the multiverse theory was dreamed up to account for it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97IHcuyWI0

Sean Carroll seems to disagree completely. However, for the sake of argument, let's grant that the universe is indeed finely tuned. Even if this is the case, we're not one step closer to demonstrating that any deity exists. All we've done is show that the universe was fine-tuned by something. That something could be a million different things. What makes you think a god is a more likely fine-tuner?

(March 29, 2017 at 9:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 29, 2017 at 8:53 am)SteveII Wrote:

---

In order for my conclusion to be irrational, you would need to provide alternative reasons for landing the winning ticket despite the odds having enough zeros as the molecules in the universe (or half that, of halve that again--I don't care--it does not matter). If you say, "I don't know" then my reasoning that it was fixed is better than that. At least I have math providing good evidence that it was.

---

If you think there is not 100% established mind-boggling low probability, then you do not understand the issues. Physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe is finely tuned. Martin Rees, who wrote the list above (from the wikipedia article), has impeccable credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

In fact it is so well established that the multiverse theory was dreamed up to account for it!!

---

Augustine 1700 years ago did not take the Genesis account as a literal 6 days. If you think you are making a point, it is a tired-out one with no real meaning. Congrats.

---

The other thing in your example, is that you are only giving one drawing (although with incredibly high odds against).  I think that it can be granted that improbable things can and do occur.  However the way that statistics works, is that they do not happen consistently.  Now in the next drawing, you switch it up, and again, you get the exact combination required.  This happens again and again.   At some point, it's reasonable to expect that something is up.

Unless reality is absurd, chance must operate within some set parameters according to mathematical principles that transcend the randomized system in order to constrain it. The role of 2d6 produces a Bell curve distribution between 2 and 12. It never produces 13 or the square root of -1. So while the skeptics can appeal to chance, there must always be a rational order in the background.

(March 29, 2017 at 11:06 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:

(March 29, 2017 at 8:53 am)SteveII Wrote: If you think there is not 100% established mind-boggling low probability, then you do not understand the issues. Physicists and cosmologists agree that the universe is finely tuned. Martin Rees, who wrote the list above (from the wikipedia article), has impeccable credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

In fact it is so well established that the multiverse theory was dreamed up to account for it!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97IHcuyWI0

Sean Carroll seems to disagree completely. However, for the sake of argument, let's grant that the universe is indeed finely tuned. Even if this is the case, we're not one step closer to demonstrating that any deity exists. All we've done is show that the universe was fine-tuned by something. That something could be a million different things. What makes you think a god is a more likely fine-tuner?

You mean there are other alternatives to consider? What? 

If you are going to say the Multiverse, then you have just pushed back the problem. If order for any multiverse to spawn billions upon billions of universes--each unique in its physical laws and constants, doesn't it too have to be fine-tuned to do so?

(March 29, 2017 at 11:27 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 29, 2017 at 11:06 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97IHcuyWI0

Sean Carroll seems to disagree completely. However, for the sake of argument, let's grant that the universe is indeed finely tuned. Even if this is the case, we're not one step closer to demonstrating that any deity exists. All we've done is show that the universe was fine-tuned by something. That something could be a million different things. What makes you think a god is a more likely fine-tuner?

You mean there are other alternatives to consider? What? 

If you are going to say the Multiverse, then you have just pushed back the problem. If order for any multiverse to spawn billions upon billions of universes--each unique in its physical laws and constants, doesn't it too have to be fine-tuned to do so?

Cant have it both ways buddy, cant attack science when it doesn't point to your super hero then cherry pick it to prop up your super hero. You still fail to see that every religion in the world pulls this shit, not just you and not just Christians. Seen this shit from Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists too.

Your bible is not nor ever was a science texbook, neither is the Koran or Torah or Talmud or the Hindu Vedas or the claimed writings of Buddha. That was then and back then nobody had one fucking clue what we scientifically know now.

The only place your god exists is in your brain because of your desire to want it to be true, not because it is true. Someone simply sold you the idea and you fell for it.

(March 29, 2017 at 11:27 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 29, 2017 at 11:06 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R97IHcuyWI0

Sean Carroll seems to disagree completely. However, for the sake of argument, let's grant that the universe is indeed finely tuned. Even if this is the case, we're not one step closer to demonstrating that any deity exists. All we've done is show that the universe was fine-tuned by something. That something could be a million different things. What makes you think a god is a more likely fine-tuner?

You mean there are other alternatives to consider? What? 

If you are going to say the Multiverse, then you have just pushed back the problem. If order for any multiverse to spawn billions upon billions of universes--each unique in its physical laws and constants, doesn't it too have to be fine-tuned to do so?

According to your argument God would have to be finely tuned as well, and to reject this is committing the fallacy of special pleading. God is just another candidate hypothesis to the solution of the fine tuning problem (if it even exists), and this hypothesis doesn't magically get a free pass.