@Drew_2013

You claimed that scientists, such as Sean Carroll, have discounted my suggestion of necessity. At least in Carroll's case, what you said was a lie.

How many other scientists have you misrepresented?

"The third point is that the fine-tunings that you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better. They might only be apparent. There's a famous example that theists like to give or even cosmologists who haven't thought about it enough, that the expansion rate of the early universe is tuned to one part in ten to the sixtieth. That's the naive estimate, back of the envelope, pencil-and-paper that you would do. But in this case you can do better. You can go into the equations of general relativity and there is a correct, rigorous derivation of the probability and when you ask the same question using the correct equations, you find that the probability is 1. All but a set of measure zero of early universe cosmologies have the right expansion rate to live for a long time and allow life to exist. I can't say that all parameters fit into that paradigm, but until we know the answer, we can't claim that they are definitely finely-tuned."
- Sean Carroll

(April 12, 2025 at 2:16 pm)Angrboda Wrote: @Drew_2013

You claimed that scientists, such as Sean Carroll, have discounted my suggestion of necessity.  At least in Carroll's case, what you said was a lie.

How many other scientists have you misrepresented?

"The third point is that the fine-tunings that you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better.  They might only be apparent.  There's a famous example that theists like to give or even cosmologists who haven't thought about it enough, that the expansion rate of the early universe is tuned to one part in ten to the sixtieth.  That's the naive estimate, back of the envelope, pencil-and-paper that you would do.  But in this case you can do better.  You can go into the equations of general relativity and there is a correct, rigorous derivation of the probability and when you ask the same question using the correct equations, you find that the probability is 1."
- Sean Carroll

Oh Drew! Please say you didn't just lie in front of everyone, yet again?

I am shocked - SHOCKED, I tellz ya - that a proponent of theistic creation would misrepresent science in order try and lend credence to an unsupported belief.

Boru

(April 12, 2025 at 2:26 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I am shocked - SHOCKED, I tellz ya - that a proponent of theistic creation would misrepresent science in order try and lend credence to an unsupported belief.

Boru

I am not going to lie, this a blow, I am not angry with Drew, more disappointed. 

Whose to say that  entropy  has always exist or always functioned in it's current way laws are based on conditions so how the conditions have always been the same assumptions.....assumptions ......assumptions

(April 12, 2025 at 4:14 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Whose to say that  entropy  has always exist or always functioned in it's current way laws are based on conditions so how the conditions have always been the same assumptions.....assumptions ......assumptions

Yes yes, but how are you ruling out inexplicable magic, from an invisible sky wizard? 

Hmph...

Quote:My hypothesis our universe was intentionally caused to produce life is based (in part) on the same knowledge and observations these people of science base multiverse on. They're allowed to have their hypothesis and I'm allowed to have mine. Some day you folks might attempt cough up some better explanation so far you're not succeeding which is why people don't believe you. 

By all means be sure you submit your thesis for publication...I'm sure they need a good belly laugh.

1. Except you don't have a hypothesis  or an explanation it's just ......"Magic somehow " 

2. We don't require an explanation and your is still not an explanation

3. The number of people you convince of something is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it's true    

Quote:This post exemplifies why atheists can't convince anyone (except themselves) we owe our existence to happenstance. So they resort to stupidity like this.

This statement exemplifies your weird obsession with truth being a popularity contest

Quote:Black holes are supernatural. 

How the hell are they supernatural ?

(April 12, 2025 at 4:14 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Whose to say that  entropy  has always exist or always functioned in it's current way laws are based on conditions so how the conditions have always been the same assumptions.....assumptions ......assumptions

It’s also worth mentioning that not all entropy rates are the same. This planet, for instance, has been increasing in order for 4.5 billion years.

Which is not to say that the Earth isn’t in an entropic state, just that it experiences a very low level of entropy. 

Boru

Bummer, no flare yet.