I always wondered how this "fine tuning worked" and imagined it a bit like a kid altering the settings in minecraft. Is that how theists think this all works?

(March 31, 2017 at 4:54 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 4:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps you should try to actually address what people are saying.  Or we can look at what you are claiming if you prefer.   I think it is a bunch of bad logic and incorrect thinking.... but we can examine it more closely.

Why? Ochams razor does not need convoluted arguments.

Your choices are.

1. There really is a divine/spirit/god world.

Or.

2. Humans make them up.

I didn't consciously choose what my talents would be. Nor do I have the personality I personally selected. But there needn't be a talent world where my talents come from nor a personality world from which spring all my quirks. It is something within and about people but not a result of their conscious intentions. I think god belief is like that. To deal with god belief as a deliberate misrepresentation by theists really is choosing to deal with religion in a very superficial, straw man way. In that case, why bother?

(April 1, 2017 at 12:28 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 3:30 pm)SteveII Wrote: Amending your sentence to: " Also, if fine-tuning is uncertain on a universal scale, then would it be premature and somewhat short-sighted to apply this way of thinking to trillions of universes? [3]

[1] Fine-tuning is not uncertain. It is the case that our universe has a very precise set of values that if they were different, the universe would not exist (in any functional sense). Not only that, the ratios between the constants have to be precise. 

[2]All but a few of the trillions of universes would not be a place with any potential for complex structure, let alone life. Unless of course you engage in metaphysical speculation that the multiverse somehow it tuned to turn out pre-tuned universes--which just begs the question why is the multiverse fine-tuned.

Regarding [1],  if the precise set of values were different, then is it more accurate to say that the universe would not exist as humanity currently understands it? Also, does fine-tuning necessarily imply causal intelligence/agency? Is it possible that universes can fine-tune themselves?

Regarding [2], is it possible that there could be trillions of universes with complex structures and forms of life that are completely beyond humanity's understanding of complex structures and forms of life? 

Thank you for your reply, SteveII

1. A different set of values would produce a different universe (or none at all). Fine-tuning does not imply intelligence agency--but it does require an explanation. No, universes cannot fine-tune themselves--the initial conditions must be such that something can form. 
2. Yes, it is possible. It is not probable with our set of physical laws (which are different than the constants).

(March 31, 2017 at 11:31 pm)masterofpuppets Wrote: The multiverse doesn't have to be finely tuned because it can be thought of as a kind of "foam" in which different "bubble" universes come to exist with their own physical constants. As aforementioned the multiverse was hypothesised based on our current understanding of physics, so it is at least somewhat viable in comparison to the idea that an intelligent designer did it. [1]

As for the claim that if the physical constants were slightly different then our universe couldn't evolve to have structure, I agree with that completely, but it doesn't explain anything because it only applies to OUR universe. The fact that the physical constants are the way they are is a consequence of the fundamental nature of our universe, not the other way round, so by definition they can't be different. Constants don't give rise to universes, they are a property of universes. The nature of other universes could be so vastly different that they may have different constants, or they might not even have constants. The correct question to be asking is "how likely is it for a universe with structure and significant duration to come to exist" and sadly we just don't know the answer to this question.  [2]

The fine tuning problem also cannot explain why the universe appears to be overly tuned in some aspects. For example, the entropy at the instant of the Big Bang is many orders of magnitude lower than what it needs to be for the Stelliferous Era of the universe to last up until now. I would appreciate if any theist here could explain why God would need to fine-tune the Universe to an unnecessary extent. [3]

1. The mechanism that generates universes must itself has laws that govern how universes are spawned. An inflationary-type multiverse must have the following mechanisms: 
i. cause the expansion of a small region of space into a very large one.
ii. generate the very large amounts of mass-energy needed for that region to contain matter instead of merely empty space.
iii. convert the mass-energy of the inflated space to the sort of mass-energy we find in our universe
iv. cause sufficient variations among the constants of physics to explain their fine-tuning 

Both (i) and (ii) are achieved by two factors: a) a postulated inflation field that gives empty space a positive energy density, and b) Einstein's equations from General Relativity. (iii) requires the old E=MC^2. So before we even get to creating matter/laws/constants, we have a very precise initial conditions necessary to to create a "random" universe. How is that not fine-tuned?  

 (reference: Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology, p.263 ff)

2. I don't disagree with your distinction. It is your last sentence in that paragraph that is the question: how likely are we to see these constants? Epistemic probability says that is is unreasonable to postulate mere chance and therefore supports the idea that the constants were designed to be the way they were. 

3. Actually, the low entropy of the initial conditions is a problem for inflationary cosmology (which in turn is the reason for postulating a multiverse). They have to compensate in their models for it (and don't know why).

(March 31, 2017 at 4:23 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Edit:  Changed my mind... agree, he's just trolling.

Brian's not trolling, he's just restating his point, mainly because ye theists are too cowardly to answer his original point. He's making a valid refutation of religion yet both you and Wooters are trying to shout him down by accusing him a troll.

And this in a thread where Steve 2 is still advancing his "fine tuning therefore god" PRATT, and nobody yet trying to shut him up.

(April 1, 2017 at 2:37 am)Katia81 Wrote: no agument. you re free to worship and go to church often if you want. PRIVATELY. Don't come knocking on a door

I don't expect religion to always stay private, but if they are guests on private websites they do not own, they should not fool themselves into thinking we will simply roll over.

In the west humans are going to make religious claims in public, the only pragmatic thing skeptics can do is challenge those claims in public. My only objection is when ANY religion tries to claim a social pecking order is mandated by the government just because they are in the majority. I don't agree with religion hijacking government business and say "I get to do it and you don't" 

The founders did NOT exclude religious people from holding office. The didn't exclude atheists from it either despite some states defying that neutrality and doing it anyway. 

My point is, if you volunteer come to my space, door or mutual public space, make a claim, when you are not forced to be, you have no right to complain when I tell you what I think of that claim. The government bans monopolies, not religion itself. The founders were wise enough to know, most of the time if people couldn't agree they would chose to keep the setting neutral, that wasn't so much the case at the founding, but I think they knew over time that choice would make the country more secular over long periods, and it has. Prior to the founding, the colonies were much more dogmatic and theocratic.

I think it is extremely important to have these debates both on private websites and even in public. I don't think far right dogmatism wins long term when you allow it. I also think having them defends scientific method and reduces the places superstition can hide and grow.

---

(April 1, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 4:23 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Edit:  Changed my mind... agree, he's just trolling.

Brian's not trolling, he's just restating his point, mainly because ye theists are too cowardly to answer his original point. He's making a valid refutation of religion yet both you and Wooters are trying to shout him down by accusing him a troll.

And this in a thread where Steve 2 is still advancing his "fine tuning therefore god" PRATT, and nobody yet trying to shut him up.

They wont make the attempt because they are afraid the cognitive dissonance will destroy their illusion. They are so used to patting themselves on the back and looking for excuses to cling to it, it never occurs to them that that is what most humans have done collectively worldwide in our species history. Most humans rather than admitting they got it wrong, will instead look for ways to keep justifying that position because it coincides with their own desires.

Roadrunner/Neo/Steve, are in the same boat as any Hindu or Buddhist or Jew or Muslim ect ect ect. I don't say that to be mean to any of my fellow humans. It is deep rooted in our evolution to defend that which we are familiar with and like. It is hard for most humans to change.

I still have yet to see in my 16 years of on line debate anyone of any religion answer science=my religion outside of "it does". I know the Hindu and Buddhist and Christian and Jew and Muslim all want to believe it points to their club sure. But if it worked like that we'd have the answer by now as to who got it right. 

The reason I challenge people OF ALL RELIGIONS to remove their club and or deity and put another one there and see if it works, is because that is what science demands, a control group and independent peer review. The concept of a control group and  independent peer review are how neutral science filters out personal bias.

If you are not willing to plug another claim into your "formula" then you are not being neutral, you are looking for an excuse to keep your position. I don't single out Christians or Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists. 

If anyone of any religion thinks they are the only religion that does that, all they have to do to know every religion does that is to google search " Christian science" then "Jewish science" then "Muslim science" then "Hindu science" then "Buddhist science".

(March 31, 2017 at 4:54 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 4:46 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps you should try to actually address what people are saying.  Or we can look at what you are claiming if you prefer.   I think it is a bunch of bad logic and incorrect thinking.... but we can examine it more closely.

Why? Ochams razor does not need convoluted arguments.

Your choices are.

1. There really is a divine/spirit/god world.

Or.

2. Humans make them up.

Out of those choices which seems to be more likely? Is it likely Apollo is real or made up? Is it likely that Thor is real or made up? Would using fine tuning convince you of those gods? No? Why not? If it works for you and is an unbias tactic then it should work for everyone who wants to use it including any other religion.

Now, think about all the dead mythologies and other god claims and religions you don't buy. Why is it you reject all others besides yours? If using science to argue for another religion doesn't convince you to convert to another religion, why should I give you any special treatment?

If others here want to wade through your bad tactic sentence by sentence, they are more than welcome to. I am simply cutting to the chase, and trying to jar you out of your fantasy at a quicker pace.

What you don't seem to understand, and I think just about everyone has pointed out to you; is that this is just a generic argument for a God/god.  Be it a deistic God, or another one.   All you are doing is showing your ignorance.    Now one of the things you may notice, if you think about the various fallacies, is that  a good many of them are fallacious, because they don't deal with the reasons for or offer any reasons against.   This is largely what you are doing here.  You are avoiding the argument, and I might at keep appealing to feelings.   That's not going to cut it.   Your question of why I reject other gods, and the science doesn't convince me of them... is  moot.   That is because you don't understand the reasons being put forth, and are just making yourself look foolish.

(April 1, 2017 at 6:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(March 31, 2017 at 4:54 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Why? Ochams razor does not need convoluted arguments.

Your choices are.

1. There really is a divine/spirit/god world.

Or.

2. Humans make them up.

Out of those choices which seems to be more likely? Is it likely Apollo is real or made up? Is it likely that Thor is real or made up? Would using fine tuning convince you of those gods? No? Why not? If it works for you and is an unbias tactic then it should work for everyone who wants to use it including any other religion.

Now, think about all the dead mythologies and other god claims and religions you don't buy. Why is it you reject all others besides yours? If using science to argue for another religion doesn't convince you to convert to another religion, why should I give you any special treatment?

If others here want to wade through your bad tactic sentence by sentence, they are more than welcome to. I am simply cutting to the chase, and trying to jar you out of your fantasy at a quicker pace.

What you don't seem to understand, and I think just about everyone has pointed out to you; is that this is just a generic argument for a God/god.  Be it a deistic God, or another one.   All you are doing is showing your ignorance.    Now one of the things you may notice, if you think about the various fallacies, is that  a good many of them are fallacious, because they don't deal with the reasons for or offer any reasons against.   This is largely what you are doing here.  You are avoiding the argument, and I might at keep appealing to feelings.   That's not going to cut it.   Your question of why I reject other gods, and the science doesn't convince me of them... is  moot.   That is because you don't understand the reasons being put forth, and are just making yourself look foolish.

I was born at night, just not last night. Been at this for 16 years.  "Generic" is a temporary tactic to distract to eventually draw you back to their specific club/deity when they cant make a direct appeal, "Am not arguing my club". 

Ok fine.

Science=generic "deistic"  God/god still suffers the same problem still competing with those with a particular named club. 

Still the same lack of evidence as the specific Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/Buddha/Brahama. 

Now what?

Quote: Your question of why I reject other gods, and the science doesn't convince me of them...is moot

Code for "I don't have to explain to you why I reject all those others".

Not on a message board no. But in a real lab compare and contrast are what control groups are for, and what independent peer review is for, IN A REAL LAB. You without realizing it,or flat out lying and don't care, are suffering from selection bias and sample rate error. I could care less if you want to now cop out to a "generic god".

No the reason you rejection all those other claims besides your own personal belief is that you, like everyone else is not willing to admit it still ultimately amounts to "I like my own personal position". Yea, so what. So do most of the 7 billion humans with all sorts of specific or, "generic" god beliefs. Your position is very relevant just like anyone else trying to say science points to their personal claim. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. So again, if you had anything, it could be neutrally compared without your own personal bias creeping in. So if you are truly being objective you and you think you are on the right track, you should not be afraid of using those other claims as part of a larger sample to compare to. If you compare your own claim as part of a larger sample and others can replicate the same data/method and come to the same conclusion, then you prove yourself right. Being stuck in your own echo chamber proves nothing.

(April 1, 2017 at 6:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 1, 2017 at 6:07 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What you don't seem to understand, and I think just about everyone has pointed out to you; is that this is just a generic argument for a God/god.  Be it a deistic God, or another one.   All you are doing is showing your ignorance.    Now one of the things you may notice, if you think about the various fallacies, is that  a good many of them are fallacious, because they don't deal with the reasons for or offer any reasons against.   This is largely what you are doing here.  You are avoiding the argument, and I might at keep appealing to feelings.   That's not going to cut it.   Your question of why I reject other gods, and the science doesn't convince me of them... is  moot.   That is because you don't understand the reasons being put forth, and are just making yourself look foolish.

I was born at night, just not last night. Been at this for 16 years.  "Generic" is a temporary tactic to distract to eventually draw you back to their specific club/deity when they cant make a direct appeal, "Am not arguing my club". 

Ok fine.

Science=generic "deistic"  God/god still suffers the same problem still competing with those with a particular named club. 

Still the same lack of evidence as the specific Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/Buddha/Brahama. 

Now what?

Brian,

It doesn't matter what you imagine are my tactics, intentions, or motivations.  Because yet again, this is just a diversion away from the argument.   Perhaps you prefer to argue for what you imagine, rather than what is being said.   It does make it easier to knock down.

Quote:

Quote: Your question of why I reject other gods, and the science doesn't convince me of them...is moot

Code for "I don't have to explain to you why I reject all those others".

Again you are making up, and putting words in my mouth.  (My guess is because is, because you don't want to deal with what is actually being said).  I won't speak for the others, but at the moment, I don't want to follow a red herring to a different topic.  Some would use this, to avoid the particular conclusions being discussed at the moment.

Quote:Not on a message board no. But in a real lab compare and contrast are what control groups are for, and what independent peer review is for, IN A REAL LAB. You without realizing it,or flat out lying and don't care, are suffering from selection bias and sample rate error. I could care less if you want to now cop out to a "generic god".

No the reason you rejection all those other claims besides your own personal belief is that you, like everyone else is not willing to admit it still ultimately amounts to "I like my own personal position". Yea, so what. So do most of the 7 billion humans with all sorts of specific or, "generic" god beliefs. Your position is very relevant just like anyone else trying to say science points to their personal claim. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. So again, if you had anything, it could be neutrally compared without your own personal bias creeping in. So if you are truly being objective you and you think you are on the right track, you should not be afraid of using those other claims as part of a larger sample to compare to. If you compare your own claim as part of a larger sample and others can replicate the same data/method and come to the same conclusion, then you prove yourself right. Being stuck in your own echo chamber proves nothing.

Just a note, but the topics we are discussing aren't done in a lab.   And yet again, you feel the need to tell me my reasons, and ignore the ones I and others have given.....  You seem to imagine a lot of reasons, to avoid this topic.  I don't even believe you understand what it is yet.

(April 1, 2017 at 8:34 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 1, 2017 at 6:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I was born at night, just not last night. Been at this for 16 years.  "Generic" is a temporary tactic to distract to eventually draw you back to their specific club/deity when they cant make a direct appeal, "Am not arguing my club". 

Ok fine.

Science=generic "deistic"  God/god still suffers the same problem still competing with those with a particular named club. 

Still the same lack of evidence as the specific Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/Buddha/Brahama. 

Now what?

Brian,

It doesn't matter what you imagine are my tactics, intentions, or motivations.  Because yet again, this is just a diversion away from the argument.   Perhaps you prefer to argue for what you imagine, rather than what is being said.   It does make it easier to knock down.

Quote:Code for "I don't have to explain to you why I reject all those others".

Again you are making up, and putting words in my mouth.  (My guess is because is, because you don't want to deal with what is actually being said).  I won't speak for the others, but at the moment, I don't want to follow a red herring to a different topic.  Some would use this, to avoid the particular conclusions being discussed at the moment.

Quote:Not on a message board no. But in a real lab compare and contrast are what control groups are for, and what independent peer review is for, IN A REAL LAB. You without realizing it,or flat out lying and don't care, are suffering from selection bias and sample rate error. I could care less if you want to now cop out to a "generic god".

No the reason you rejection all those other claims besides your own personal belief is that you, like everyone else is not willing to admit it still ultimately amounts to "I like my own personal position". Yea, so what. So do most of the 7 billion humans with all sorts of specific or, "generic" god beliefs. Your position is very relevant just like anyone else trying to say science points to their personal claim. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. So again, if you had anything, it could be neutrally compared without your own personal bias creeping in. So if you are truly being objective you and you think you are on the right track, you should not be afraid of using those other claims as part of a larger sample to compare to. If you compare your own claim as part of a larger sample and others can replicate the same data/method and come to the same conclusion, then you prove yourself right. Being stuck in your own echo chamber proves nothing.

Just a note, but the topics we are discussing aren't done in a lab.   And yet again, you feel the need to tell me my reasons, and ignore the ones I and others have given.....  You seem to imagine a lot of reasons, to avoid this topic.  I don't even believe you understand what it is yet.

Of course these arguments are not done in a lab, because if you could do that, you wouldn't be here mentally masturbating trying to convince yourself you are right. You could literally take your claim to a lab compare your claim to a large sample of competing claims with control groups, and have your data/method replicated and they would see the same thing you do. 

The only reason you are here is that some slick people did the wrong thing and brought their personal bias into it and you fell for it because when they sold it to you it sounded good to you. Now you want to spread your "good news", and again, so what, everyone has "scientists" of every religion that think science points to their pet position. 

Neutrality isn't mental masturbation on  website. Facts get determined when you are willing to have a large sample rate and control groups get confirmed by others outside your own personal position.

You are here in reality to confirm your own bias, you either are lying or deluded and unwittingly falling for your own wishful thinking. 

If science were pointing to an old mythology or even a "generic" deity then it could be easily proven by all claimers competing to agree on a neutral lab and neutral method and all claimants would be willing to hand it over for confirmation beyond their own control which is what peer review is.

This website is not a lab, so if you really want to prove us wrong, find one and use it, but do not expect us to simply swallow because you use science lingo while trying to argue your position, every religion does this. If you are not going to do that, again, we are going to treat you no differently than we would anyone else.

How about you go get your claim universally confirmed worldwide then we will consider your findings. But don't cry about how we are treating you bad. Our position would be the same no matter the specific or "generic".