Any argument that physics must be in a current configuration, that the current laws must function as they currently do or the properties of the cosmos must be the way we currently see them is an assumption you can run simulations you want they won't give you all the possibilities. You can throw probabilities around all you like the only probability that matters is if it happened, or it didn't all else is incredulity and the universe doesn't care how probably you find it's existence.

Quote:Drew: 

Quote:3. Argument from authority he's just some dude with an opinion 

A scientist dude.

Do you imagine the opinion of any scientist represents scientific fact? This might explain a great deal. Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, was he justified in that belief? Do take your time...

Plenty of scientists believed in Phlogiston, Spontaneous Generation, The Ather , Eugenics . Being scientist doesn't make your every utterance gospel

This just gets worse and worse. Stamping your foot and screeching "'cause I said so" is nearly as convincing.

Let me go light a candle for all the infallible sciency dudes and dudettes out there.

Maybe burn some sage too while drinking a bleach cocktail while shining a light up my butt.

It's just a growing impression on my part, but I don't think Drew understands that the term "fine tuning", is a metaphor scientists use to describe a particular phenomenon, and whilst what it describes is objective scientific fact, it does not mean, nor is there any objective scientific evidence, that the universe is literally fine tuned. 

Let alone that this represents scientific evidence for a creator deity, which is demonstrably untrue.

(April 7, 2025 at 1:00 pm)Sheldon Wrote: It's just a growing impression on my part, but I don't think Drew understands that the term "fine tuning", is a metaphor scientists use to describe a particular phenomenon, and whilst what it describes is objective scientific fact, it does not mean, nor is there any objective scientific evidence, that the universe is literally fine tuned. 

Let alone that this represents scientific evidence for a creator deity, which is demonstrably untrue.

Methinks Drewvy drank the Kool Aid and wants us to share in it.

Drow really needs to just take the L and move on

Sheldon

Quote:You have presented no evidence the ideas expressed are scientifically evidenced, and we already know they are not, as there is no such consensus among scientists with the necessary expertise in the related fields of scientific study. And of course, if this man remains an atheist, this rather contradicts your assumptions fine tuning evidences a deity. You see happy to ignore such flaws in your spiel.

I have repeatedly presented facts you call an appeal to authority. There is a consensus the universe is fine-tuned for life. The people making those observations are the people who, if anyone should know. My spiel, as you call it, is the reason I and many people including scientists and non-religious people subscribe to the claim our universe was intentionally caused.

Atheism makes a counter claim that at very the very minimum whatever caused the universe and ultimately life, it was the result of sheer happenstance by forces the didn't intend the universe to exist, didn't intend the laws of physics to exist and didn't intend themselves to exist. Yet we live in a universe  that has  laws  of  physics,  is  knowable,  uniform  and  to  a  large  extent  predictable,  amenable  to  scientific  research  and  the  laws  of  logic  deduction  and  induction  and  is  also  explicable  in  mathematical  terms. Isaac Newton, the father of physics believed the universe was intentionally caused to exist so he did use circular reasoning to deduce universe was explicable mathematically. His circular reasoning panned out. Dozens of formula's have been extracted from the universe. Explain why natural forces that didn't intend humans to exist would cause a universe with laws of physics that force stars to make the ingredients needed for planets and humans to exist? There is no explanation...just happenstance. 

Lets level set this argument a bit. The only two things we know and agree on is that the universe exists and intelligent humans exist and obviously the conditions for that to occur exist. Even the most hard core atheist has to admit its at least very fortuitous that mechanistic forces serendipitously caused the conditions for life to occur.
 

Quote:I now what the term means thanks, it is not broadly accepted among elite scientists in the necessary fields of study that the universe is "fine tuned", or that this phenomenon is evidence of a creator or a deity. Do you imagine this objection will go away if you simply keep repeating your original claims? That scientists use the term "fine tuned" to describe this phenomenon, does not mean it is fine tuned, let alone by a creator, or a deity. You seem to have lathered yourself up, but forgotten to turn on the shower. I accept that the carbon based organic life we observe, would be impossible if the parameters of certain characteristics of the physical universe were shifting an infinitesimally small amount, this does not represent scientific evidence it was fine tuned, even if that term has become a popular metaphor among scientists to describe that phenomenon.

I realize to atheists fine-tuning is just another observation they have to wish away. Suppose scientists made their measurements and observations and realized a whole slew of wide ranging possibilities would cause life to exist? You'd be screaming it from the rooftops. Exactly what you'd expect of forces that didn't intend our existence. You'd expect life to be something forces that didn't intend to cause life could do without trying. Yet knowing  the ingredients for life but we still can't get it started.

(April 7, 2025 at 12:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @Drew_2013

Quote:Bull. We only know of one planet that has life (we know of many more where life didn't adapt). Apparently it didn't even adapt on Mars which was quite earth like early on. 

Mars ‘died’ when it lost its magnetosphere after about 1.5 billion years (this is coincidentally roughly about the same time life arose on Earth). It’s rather silly to claim that this is somehow an argument for special creation or fine tuning - Mars never had a chance.

It’s kind of like saying that the horse you bet on is magical, because all of the other horses died at the starting gate.

Boru

It was in response to the claim life adapts to the environment. If it did the changing atmosphere of Mars shouldn't have mattered. At the point the only planet we can say life adapted to is earth. Its seems scientists are very upbeat about the prospect of finding life. They know the ingredients for life are abundant thanks to fortuitous laws of physics.

Those of us who trust science know that it's always coming up with new things as knowledge and technology grow and evolve.

You want us to believe that a book from a couple thousand years ago, written by a bunch of people who didn't even know the supposed Christ, had everything just right.

Science fine-tunes all the time. Religion just figures out new ways to say the same damn thing over and over.

You are boring and bring nothing new to the table.