(April 14, 2025 at 10:12 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 2:37 am)Sheldon Wrote: Whilst I wouldn't trust your word now, to sell me a used napkin, please give the time in that video where he claims his hypothesis requires an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable and unevidenced magical superpowers? 

Take your time, I can wait.   Oh, no need to bother, it took less than ten seconds to find out that he's an atheist. 

I am going to go out on a limb here, and suggest he is better placed, than you are, to understand whether his work evidences your sky wizard. 

I've always said he is an atheist dimwit. He substitutes an infinitude of universes over a Creator.

No he doesn't, you're using a false dichotomy fallacy, he doesn't need a scientific substitute to your unevidenced superstition, anymore than he needs a substitute for his lack of belief in mermaids. Though it's a particularly stupid idea, to cite someone who doesn't share your unevidenced superstitious conclusions, as an example of, well what exactly? What's you're overarching point here, that elite scientists tend not to believe in unevidenced unfalsifiable superstition, and irrational arguments, well who fucking knew.

(April 14, 2025 at 10:21 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 2:30 am)Sheldon Wrote: Just a few days ago you say, hmm...

I mean he could have always been a dishonest troll.  For my two cents I think he simply couldn't handle the push back and was getting more and more frustrated over his parroted arguments being picked apart.  

Unable to defend his stance adequately he's regressed to name calling and trolling.

Yeah you nailed it, with maybe a little wiggle room on the timeline.

(April 14, 2025 at 3:06 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 13, 2025 at 10:16 am)Deesse23 Wrote: God: Seems to rather have an empty space fetish.

Not to mention the obsession such a deity would have had to have, for tinkering with dinosaur DNA for hundreds of millions of years. Drew expects us to imagine, that an unevidenced deity, that can create universes instantly from sheer will alone, using limitless supernatural powers, created one "fine tuned for life", with one species of evolved ape, as the main show. 

Paradoxically the only life we know of exist in an infinitesimally small speck, and the vast majority of that universe makes life impossible, plus this deity waited over nine billion years for the tiny solar system to emerge from the universe it created, then waited another 4.54 billion years, using evolution that kills of the vast majority of species, just to evolve one species of great ape, a mere 200k years ago. Not to mention the fact, that this universe Drew imagines is "fine tuned" for life, is going to destroy all that life, when the sun immolates our planet, in about a billion years. 

That's one hell of a plan, and calling it intelligent design, is a massive piece of irony. Parenthetically, if life were mere happenstance, and was no more significant than any other characteristic of that insentient universe, then that universe's indifference makes sense. 

It's a puzzle alright...

Fine tuning is so absurd, there are no words to describe how absurd this notion is. Since Drew seems so impressed by numbers, lets throw some numbers back at him:

• 95% of the universe is "not baryonic matter"
  
• 99% of space is empty space
  
• 99% of non-empty space is insta-death to life, that includes the interior and surface of: Black holes, stars, neutron stars, white dwarves, brown dwarves, gas giants, ice giants, etc.
  
• 75% of all stars are red dwarves (M class), yet they are hostile to life due to flares, a small habitable zone and the fact that said zone is so close to the star that any planet in orbit would be tidally locked in the long term, preventing any meaningful progression of evolution
  
• 20% of stars only are yellow dwarves (G-class), the only type of which we know life is possible around it so far
  
• 71% of planet Earths surface is deadly for humans. You will drown in a matter of days
  
• 97% of all water is poisonous to humans, since its saline water
  
• 99% of all species are extinct
  
• 12% of plants are edible to humans
  
• Too much exposure to the Sun causes skin cancer
  
• etc
  
• pp
  

fine-tuning my ass.

(April 14, 2025 at 11:11 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 3:06 am)Sheldon Wrote: Not to mention the obsession such a deity would have had to have, for tinkering with dinosaur DNA for hundreds of millions of years. Drew expects us to imagine, that an unevidenced deity, that can create universes instantly from sheer will alone, using limitless supernatural powers, created one "fine tuned for life", with one species of evolved ape, as the main show. 

Paradoxically the only life we know of exist in an infinitesimally small speck, and the vast majority of that universe makes life impossible, plus this deity waited over nine billion years for the tiny solar system to emerge from the universe it created, then waited another 4.54 billion years, using evolution that kills of the vast majority of species, just to evolve one species of great ape, a mere 200k years ago. Not to mention the fact, that this universe Drew imagines is "fine tuned" for life, is going to destroy all that life, when the sun immolates our planet, in about a billion years. 

That's one hell of a plan, and calling it intelligent design, is a massive piece of irony. Parenthetically, if life were mere happenstance, and was no more significant than any other characteristic of that insentient universe, then that universe's indifference makes sense. 

It's a puzzle alright...

Fine tuning is so absurd, there are no words to describe how absurd this notion is. Since Drew seems so impressed by numbers, lets throw some numbers back at him:

• 95% of the universe is "not baryonic matter"
  
• 99% of space is empty space
  
• 99% of non-empty space is insta-death to life, that includes the interior and surface of: Black holes, stars, neutron stars, white dwarves, brown dwarves, gas giants, ice giants, etc.
  
• 75% of all stars are red dwarves (M class), yet they are hostile to life due to flares, a small habitable zone and the fact that said zone is so close to the star that any planet in orbit would be tidally locked in the long term, preventing any meaningful progression of evolution
  
• 20% of stars only are yellow dwarves (G-class), the only type of which we know life is possible around it so far
  
• 71% of planet Earths surface is deadly for humans. You will drown in a matter of days
  
• 97% of all water is poisonous to humans, since its saline water
  
• 99% of all species are extinct
  
• 12% of plants are edible to humans
  
• Too much exposure to the Sun causes skin cancer
  
• etc
  
• pp
  

fine-tuning my ass.

Maybe it's fine tuned for death 

(April 14, 2025 at 10:35 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 10:12 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I've always said he is an atheist dimwit. He substitutes an infinitude of universes over a Creator.

No he doesn't, you're using a false dichotomy fallacy,

Get over your fallacy fetish...Rees claims we live in a multiverse and just six numbers is the reason why. Its the conclusion of his book. Just type in Just Six Numbers and you get a free PDF.

Quote:Get over your fallacy fetish...Rees claims we live in a multiverse and just six numbers is the reason why. Its the conclusion of his book. Just type in Just Six Numbers and you get a free PDF.

How about you stop spewing fallacies and he will stop pointing them out . Again no he doesn't and the charge of using a false dichotomy remains unchallenged

(April 14, 2025 at 10:33 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 14, 2025 at 10:25 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I accept the fine-tuning of motherboards as a brute fact because they are intentionally designed to come out fine-tuned for computing. The fact they are caused to be fine-tuned doesn't mean they're not fine-tuned.

I think you get this now only a person of low intelligence would fail to see it.

False equivalence fallacy, still. Motherboards are not the same as the universe..."only a person of low intelligence would fail to see it." Or a dishonest troll of course. 

Fallacy fetish again. The point lost on you is whether something if it had to come out as it did, means its not fine-tuned. If something is fine-tuned like a motherboard it remains fine-tuned even if forced that way by a mold. 

This is what is called a hypothetical fallacy since its not known if the universe had to come out as it did or not. Either way we still observe a universe fine-tuned for life to exist.

(April 13, 2025 at 4:34 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 12, 2025 at 9:58 pm)Angrboda Wrote: In this video Rees details that while his speculations about the constants preceded the theorems of inflation, it wasn't the work on the constants but rather the ideas and theorems concerning inflation that led to the supposition that there might be multiple universes, and that these universes might have different constants and laws.  He makes the point that inflation and string theory both play a role in the suggestion of a multiverse.  It was not his work on fine-tuning that led to it.  He says as much in the book that Drew cites, Just Six Numbers, which I will quote as well.

"[B]ack in the 1970s we speculated about this [fine tuning] and I wrote a paper with Bernard Carr ... I don't think at that stage we had any partcular view as to whether these counterfactual universes might be a consequence of a real physical theory but the development of the idea of inflation and the realization that our universe might go far beyond the observational horizon did lead one to speculate that may actually be places ... the inflationary idea was developed in 1980s and that led to the possibilities that there could be domains and at the same time the realization came about that perhaps different big bangs might as it were cool down differently, it was the idea that the laws of low energy physics in the world we inhabit may be the outcome of so-called phase transitions as a universe cools down and these may have happened differently in different universes and this leads to the idea that what we call universal laws might be as it were environmental accidents in our cosmic patch and not the deepest level of universal laws.  So I think the idea that there might be other big bangs became discussed widely after the development of inflation, and there have since then been other ideas involving other space times."





"This ‘multiverse’ concept, though speculative, is a natural extension of current cosmological theories, which gain credence because they account for things that we do observe. The physical laws and geometry could be different in other universes, and this offers a new perspective on the seemingly special values that the six numbers take in ours."

Martin Rees.  Just Six Numbers.

In the book you refer to he fields the hypothetical that universe had to be as it is. He rebuts the hypothesis because it begs the question why if a universe has to be in a certain configuration, why is it the narrow configuration that causes planets, star, galaxies, molecules and ultimately life to exist. It doesn't solve the problem only pushes it back. That's why he continues to believe in multiverse theory.

The puzzle is not with why we have a universe configured for planets and stars and life and all that. The puzzle is simply with why the universe is configured a particular way, regardless of what it leads to. Even if it were established that God exists, the puzzle still remains. Why this universe rather than another?

Multiverse views provide a potential answer to this puzzle by simply suggesting that this universe is just one of many universes out there, which does away with the puzzling aspect of a seemingly arbitrary configuration of a lone universe.

(April 14, 2025 at 10:28 am)Drew_2013 Wrote:

(April 13, 2025 at 7:06 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: And you have the audacity to block others for being offensive. Fucking Hypocrite!

He can block me so you can. Fucking Jerk.

Moderator Notice
Cool it.

For the record, I don’t block anyone. Never have, never will.

Also for the record ‘jerk’ doesn’t need to be capitalized.


Boru

(April 14, 2025 at 10:34 am)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

Moderator Notice
 Ease up on the name calling. This goes for everyone.  Attack the argument not the arguer.   We can handle it if he goes full kamakazi

 Bit late for that, but I take your point.

Boru