(March 30, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 12:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: That is a lot of claims for someone who was shifting the burden of proof just a few minutes ago (out of context; I may also add).
Now it is my turn to ask why?  What evidence or reason do you give for these claims?

Again sorry, but this is the same dodge everyone of every religion gives. 

We are finite, sorry you don't like that. I am trying to help you escape your fantasy. 

13.8 year old universe and you'd have me believe some old and unscientific book of myth explains shit?

Everything has a shelf life all the way down to atoms. Atoms cannot act like an entire in tact functioning brain. Break down the functioning highway into unusable pieces it will not be in tact. If you really think you survive your death we should expect to see neutral experiments where you could decapitate a human head, re attach it and have it function as if nothing happened. Same with our planet, all it would take to kill our planet and all life on it is a meteor or commit bigger than what killed the dinosaurs, like the commit that hit Jupiter a few years back. 

The sun as well has finite fuel and it will burn out, collapse or expand and eventually die. 

If you already reject rightfully the afterlife myths of other religions, even the pre life reincarnation and post life reincarnation myths of even Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as the afterlife myths of Jews and Muslims and the Ancient Egyptians then you should have no problem ditching even your own position. 

You are scared of being finite. No I don't mean death, just not being around as a consciousness forever. I am saying there is nothing to be afraid of about not existing just like you are not afraid of what it was like 5 million years ago.

What dodge?  I asked a question based on your claims... Which seem little more than physical things are finite..... I would tend to agree.  They have a beginning and an end.  This would also apply to a physical cosmos correct?  Now I would disagree somewhat with the assumption that there could not be something unlike what we have seen (and basing it only on that).  But I have heard a philosophical argument, that physical things are necessarily bound and therefore also finite.  

There was also a number of other claims in your post, that you didn't even touch on.... the question still remains as to why (your reasons or evidence for being so).

And would you please quit projecting your assumptions onto me... you are not very good at it.

Dawkins deals with fine tuning.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ric...&FORM=VIRE

(March 30, 2017 at 12:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 12:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Again sorry, but this is the same dodge everyone of every religion gives. 

We are finite, sorry you don't like that. I am trying to help you escape your fantasy. 

13.8 year old universe and you'd have me believe some old and unscientific book of myth explains shit?

Everything has a shelf life all the way down to atoms. Atoms cannot act like an entire in tact functioning brain. Break down the functioning highway into unusable pieces it will not be in tact. If you really think you survive your death we should expect to see neutral experiments where you could decapitate a human head, re attach it and have it function as if nothing happened. Same with our planet, all it would take to kill our planet and all life on it is a meteor or commit bigger than what killed the dinosaurs, like the commit that hit Jupiter a few years back. 

The sun as well has finite fuel and it will burn out, collapse or expand and eventually die. 

If you already reject rightfully the afterlife myths of other religions, even the pre life reincarnation and post life reincarnation myths of even Hinduism and Buddhism, as well as the afterlife myths of Jews and Muslims and the Ancient Egyptians then you should have no problem ditching even your own position. 

You are scared of being finite. No I don't mean death, just not being around as a consciousness forever. I am saying there is nothing to be afraid of about not existing just like you are not afraid of what it was like 5 million years ago.

What dodge?  I asked a question based on your claims... Which seem little more than physical things are finite..... I would tend to agree.  They have a beginning and an end.  This would also apply to a physical cosmos correct?  Now I would disagree somewhat with the assumption that there could not be something unlike what we have seen (and basing it only on that).  But I have heard a philosophical argument, that physical things are necessarily bound and therefore also finite.  

There was also a number of other claims in your post, that you didn't even touch on.... the question still remains as to why (your reasons or evidence for being so).

And would you please quit projecting your assumptions onto me... you are not very good at it.

The only one projecting  is you, and you like your god otherwise you wouldn't make arguments for it. You like a human like cognition with super powers existing, otherwise you would not make arguments for it. God is a reflection of humans. You simply don't realize that all it is is YOUR own desire to have a super hero. Get over that fear of being wrong and you will understand us.

(March 30, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 9:57 am)SteveII Wrote: First, you have obviously not read back through the posts for the past 9 pages. 

Yes, the initial constants could have been different. There is nothing that makes them the way they are. That is not debated. Therefore, the universe is NOT the way it is out of necessity.

This is flat out wrong.

Quote: The desire to explain the constants has been one of the driving forces behind efforts to develop a complete unified description of nature, or theory of everything. Physicists have hoped that such a theory would show that each of the constants of nature could have only one logically possible value.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...s-2006-02/

The only place that you've ruled out necessity is in your fevered imagination.  A corollary of this fact is that any calculation of how improbable the current physical constants are is based on nothing but hot air.  Nobody knows the ranges these values can take, nor even if they can take other values.  Your statements here are nothing but fancy lies.

I read the whole article. It does not support your assertion other than a theory (perhaps M-Theory), when it is formulated, can answer the question. That does not sound settled to me. A particular telling paragraph in the article was (emphasis added): 

Quote:Meanwhile physicists have also come to appreciate that the values of many of the constants may be the result of mere happenstance, acquired during random events and elementary particle processes early in the history of the universe. In fact, string theory allows for a vast number--10500--of possible worlds with different self-consistent sets of laws and constants [see The String Theory Landscape, by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 2004]. So far researchers have no idea why our combination was selected. Continued study may reduce the number of logically possible worlds to one, but we have to remain open to the unnerving possibility that our known universe is but one of many--a part of a multiverse--and that different parts of the multiverse exhibit different solutions to the theory, our observed laws of nature being merely one edition of many systems of local bylaws [see Parallel Universes, by Max Tegmark; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May 2003].

Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the expressed reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

(March 30, 2017 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is flat out wrong.


The only place that you've ruled out necessity is in your fevered imagination.  A corollary of this fact is that any calculation of how improbable the current physical constants are is based on nothing but hot air.  Nobody knows the ranges these values can take, nor even if they can take other values.  Your statements here are nothing but fancy lies.

I read the whole article. It does not support your assertion other than a theory (perhaps M-Theory), when it is formulated, can answer the question. That does not sound settled to me. A particular telling paragraph in the article was (emphasis added): 

Quote:Meanwhile physicists have also come to appreciate that the values of many of the constants may be the result of mere happenstance, acquired during random events and elementary particle processes early in the history of the universe. In fact, string theory allows for a vast number--10500--of possible worlds with different self-consistent sets of laws and constants [see The String Theory Landscape, by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 2004]. So far researchers have no idea why our combination was selected. Continued study may reduce the number of logically possible worlds to one, but we have to remain open to the unnerving possibility that our known universe is but one of many--a part of a multiverse--and that different parts of the multiverse exhibit different solutions to the theory, our observed laws of nature being merely one edition of many systems of local bylaws [see Parallel Universes, by Max Tegmark; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May 2003].

Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the express reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

If if if if, if ifs and but's were candy and nuts we'd all have a party, and you are STILL stuck with a countless number of deity claims in human history that everyone tries to fill the gap with. I think Ocham's Razor deals with this simply, to the quick.

Which makes more sense to you, which seems more of a probability?

1. Allah exists, or humans made him up?
2. Yahweh exists, or humans made him up?
3. You do know that Yahweh started out prior as a lessor god in the divine polytheistic family of the Canaanites right? Are they real gods or did humans make them up?
4. The Hindu creator God Brahama exists, or humans made him up?
5. The Egyptian sun god Ra exists, or humans made them up?

In terms of probability, considering all the competing claims and dead claims of the past, and the fact nobody has any universal evidence that is not bias, I'd say there is no super natural all powerful being. I'd say humans are merely projecting their own human qualities on things that do not exist in reality.

(March 30, 2017 at 12:55 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Dawkins deals with fine tuning.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ric...&FORM=VIRE

Not very well. Multiverse just kicks the can upstairs. How was the multiverse fine-tuned to turn out universes with physical constants at all? How long was this multiverse around? 

Also, since a multiverse is not something of real scientific inquiry because it is exempt from any experiment and verification, is it really a thing? Many of you say if it isn't capable of being examined scientifically, it isn't real! 

I think you have all crossed into philosophy when no one was paying attention.

(March 30, 2017 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote:

---

(March 30, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is flat out wrong.


The only place that you've ruled out necessity is in your fevered imagination.  A corollary of this fact is that any calculation of how improbable the current physical constants are is based on nothing but hot air.  Nobody knows the ranges these values can take, nor even if they can take other values.  Your statements here are nothing but fancy lies.

I read the whole article. It does not support your assertion other than a theory (perhaps M-Theory), when it is formulated, can answer the question. That does not sound settled to me. A particular telling paragraph in the article was (emphasis added): 

Quote:Meanwhile physicists have also come to appreciate that the values of many of the constants may be the result of mere happenstance, acquired during random events and elementary particle processes early in the history of the universe. In fact, string theory allows for a vast number--10500--of possible worlds with different self-consistent sets of laws and constants [see The String Theory Landscape, by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 2004]. So far researchers have no idea why our combination was selected. Continued study may reduce the number of logically possible worlds to one, but we have to remain open to the unnerving possibility that our known universe is but one of many--a part of a multiverse--and that different parts of the multiverse exhibit different solutions to the theory, our observed laws of nature being merely one edition of many systems of local bylaws [see Parallel Universes, by Max Tegmark; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May 2003].

Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the express reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

---

I think that it's reasonable that some of these constants could be different; depending on initial. The expansion rate of the universe comes to mind.
But, even if some cannot be different; such as the strong or weak nuclear force. We can still figure what would happen if they where different. Which begs the question of being constrained to such a fortunate and fine tuned limit.

(March 30, 2017 at 1:54 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote:

---

I read the whole article. It does not support your assertion other than a theory (perhaps M-Theory), when it is formulated, can answer the question. That does not sound settled to me. A particular telling paragraph in the article was (emphasis added): 


Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

Physicists posit a multiverse for the express reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

---

I think that it's reasonable that some of these constants could be different; depending on initial.  The expansion rate of the universe comes to mind.  
But, even if some cannot be different; such as the strong or weak nuclear force.   We can still figure what would happen if they where different.  Which begs the question of being constrained to such a fortunate and fine tuned limit.

"Strong weak nuclear force=fortunate that Allah did it"
"Strong weak nuclear force=fortunate that Yahweh did it"
"Strong weak nuclear force=fortunate that Brahma did it".

Yep you accept nuclear technology as existing, well so does electricity which makes up lightening so by your logic Thor exists. 

Still stuck with "which one" to fill in that gap. And I also bet neither of you have taken the time to do a simple google search and look up "Muslim Science" or "Jewish Science" or "Hindu Science" or "Buddhist science". 

Both of you are too afraid that Ocham's razor says the least complicated postulated answer is the most likely solution. Both of you still refuse to consider that the evidence points to humans making up god claims.

(March 30, 2017 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 12:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 9:57 am)SteveII Wrote: First, you have obviously not read back through the posts for the past 9 pages.

Yes, the initial constants could have been different. There is nothing that makes them the way they are. That is not debated. Therefore, the universe is NOT the way it is out of necessity.

This is flat out wrong.


The only place that you've ruled out necessity is in your fevered imagination.  A corollary of this fact is that any calculation of how improbable the current physical constants are is based on nothing but hot air.  Nobody knows the ranges these values can take, nor even if they can take other values.  Your statements here are nothing but fancy lies.

I read the whole article. It does not support your assertion other than a theory (perhaps M-Theory), when it is formulated, can answer the question. That does not sound settled to me.

How did we get from your claiming that there is no debate that the physical constants can take on different values to this? That the matter was not settled was my whole point. You're simply agreeing with me.

(March 30, 2017 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote: A particular telling paragraph in the article was (emphasis added): 

Quote:Meanwhile physicists have also come to appreciate that the values of many of the constants may be the result of mere happenstance, acquired during random events and elementary particle processes early in the history of the universe. In fact, string theory allows for a vast number--10500--of possible worlds with different self-consistent sets of laws and constants [see The String Theory Landscape, by Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, September 2004]. So far researchers have no idea why our combination was selected. Continued study may reduce the number of logically possible worlds to one, but we have to remain open to the unnerving possibility that our known universe is but one of many--a part of a multiverse--and that different parts of the multiverse exhibit different solutions to the theory, our observed laws of nature being merely one edition of many systems of local bylaws [see Parallel Universes, by Max Tegmark; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May 2003].

This simply reiterates the point that the possibility that the physical constants are the way they are out of necessity, far from being ruled out is very much a live hypothesis. I understand it's a necessary step to your argument to rule out necessity as an option, but please stop misrepresenting things. The matter of whether the physical constant are what they are out of necessity or not is far from settled.

(March 30, 2017 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the probability, I understand your point that if we do not know the range, we cannot assign probability. However, why isn't the range of possible values unlimited? What factor(s) could constrain the constants of the universe before the universe? Or are you saying that one constant could be a restraint on another before the universe existed? Why?

These are nonsense questions. The values of the physical constants aren't necessarily "constrained" to take only certain ranges of values, or even one; that may simply be the nature of the specific constants. As noted, it's within the realm of possibility that for reasons we don't currently understand, they can only take on one value. Asking why the range of possible values isn't unlimited is implicitly calling upon the PSR in a way that is hardly illuminating. It's like asking why is today different from yesterday. That may simply be the way things have to be.

(March 30, 2017 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote: Physicists posit a multiverse for the express reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

This is yet another misrepresentation. Physicists originally proposed the multiverse as an implication of Alan Guth's work on inflation. It's a canard that the multiverse theory was originated to solve the fine tuning problem.

Quote: "It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse.

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."

http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-co...waves.html

(March 30, 2017 at 1:49 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 30, 2017 at 12:55 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Dawkins deals with fine tuning.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ric...&FORM=VIRE

Not very well. Multiverse just kicks the can upstairs. How was the multiverse fine-tuned to turn out universes with physical constants at all? How long was this multiverse around? 

Also, since a multiverse is not something of real scientific inquiry because it is exempt from any experiment and verification, is it really a thing? Many of you say if it isn't capable of being examined scientifically, it isn't real! 

I think you have all crossed into philosophy when no one was paying attention.

No it does not.

Again,

"Multiverse kicks the can upstairs=therefore Allah fills in the gap"
"Multiverse kicks the can upstairs=therefore Yahweh fills in the gap"
"Multiverse kicks the can upstairs=therefore the Hindu god Brahma fills in the gap"
"Multiverse kicks the can upstairs=therefore Poseidon fills in the gap".

You are still trying to fill your gap answer in, but so what, if we are going to assume anything is possible then we could just as easily assume that a giant unicorn did it.

I don't think you understand scientifically what the multiverse theory says.