Fine Tuning Argument

[NoGodaloud ?]

2 It misuses probablity theory to say gee whizz look at how improbable this is. Improbable things happen all the time and continue to do so, it is an after the fact argument and has no predictive power

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...e-t191.htm

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.
This epistemic-probability is one part in: 10000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.
Epistemic Probability: 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1

you must be VERY credulous in chance, to think it is a good explanation for the existence of life, don't you think ? why do you not think, design is a better explanation ?

3 If true then its an argument against design as the universe needed fine tuning and wasn't perfect at creation

what shall that mean ? that gravity for example would be disnecessary, in order to our universe being perfect ?

4 Even if true because of 3 above the designer wasn't perfect because he created something incompetently that it needed tuning

Non sequitur. Life to exist, needs order.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god...n-t217.htm

In Christianity we have this statement regarding God being able to create a rock too big to move, or this sort of thing. “Nonsense is nonsense, even when you try to apply it to God.”

5 Even if true it says nothing for the designer, it could have been anything

that is true. But it doesnt remove the argument for a designer.

6 It says nothing for the purpose of the universe.

And how should that fact remove the validness of the argument ?

99.999999%+ of the universe is a very hostile place to us. What makes us think we were the object of it?

just the fact that we exist, and the odds, this to happen by chance.

The universe is doomed to entropic heat death

So ?

[LastPoet]

You keep inventing probabilities nogodaloud, and keep running away from peoples arguments. On this thread you claim:

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

Yet, on the "How to debate a Christian" thread you claim:

But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros.

I rest my case. You sir, are full of bullshit.

[NoGodaloud ?]

You keep inventing probabilities nogodaloud, and keep running away from peoples arguments. On this thread you claim:

Lee Smolin (a world-class physicist and a leader in quantum gravity) estimates that if the physical constants of the universe were chosen randomly, the epistemic-probability of ending up with a world with carbon chemistry is less than one part in 10^220.

Yet, on the "How to debate a Christian" thread you claim:

But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros.

I rest my case. You sir, are full of bullshit.

Lee Smolin was referring only the estimate to produce Carbon based life by chance.
The other estimate includes not only the chance of carbon based life, but the universe as a whole.

You rest your case, because you have no convincing case. Sadly you don't admit it, instead of this, you insult me......

[LastPoet]

Sorry, but like I said before, you are just spewing stuff you read on religious websites, you posed no argument yet. But do carry on, I'm having fun waching you doing silly apologetics. That you feel insulted I already know, theists always have thin skins

[Captain Scarlet]

Sorry, but like I said before, you are just spewing stuff you read on religious websites, you posed no argument yet. But do carry on, I'm having fun waching you doing silly apologetics. That you feel insulted I already know, theists always have thin skins

I'm afraid there is a lot of silly quote mining. As if Lee Smolin or any reputable physicist thinks a god was sitting there with some dials to ensure we would arrive at some point; just ridiculous. A misuse of probability theories to state look how nearly we didn't get here. Is that the best that can be done to infer god? Fine tuning is so weak as an argument. A godcould clearly have improved on the design as he can create at least one habitable world. Why not more? Why is 99.99999999999999999999%+ hostile to life? What were the odds of the universe not coming into existence with the constants as they are? What other combinations would lead to other life forms? There are clearly other configurations that lead to life seemingly god lives in one. All these questions are unadressed by fine tuning but need to be answered.