(November 11, 2016 at 11:34 pm)snowtracks Wrote:(November 9, 2016 at 2:44 am)Astreja Wrote: *facepalm* Dear, Sweet Uncle Loki -- Not the fucking Fine Tuning Argument.The sample size is one; infinite multiverse is only a metaphysical speculation. Randomness doesn't support the probabilities (10^120) - 10 followed by 120 zeros. Somehow, this one event got it right, 1 out of 1; of course if there is evidences of other universe's that didn't get right, the odds would have to be revised --- should the odds be revised?
Look, Snowtracks, it's very simple: In any universe where the various constants did not support stability and the chemistry necessary for life, we simply would not be here talking about it. Discussions such as these can only occur in a life-supporting universe, so all you are seeing is merely the illusion of design.
I do not see evidence that any god caused the Big Bang, but I'm reasonably sure that the god described in the Bible is much too stupid to have done it. IIRC, it got blindsided by a Talking Snake™ 3 chapters into Genesis, and it didn't do a particularly good approximation of pi, either. Trying to design atomic valence is way above its pay grade.
The sample size is 1; the probability at this point is not 1/10^120; it is 1.0. Universe is already here; therefore the odds of it being here are 100%.
We have no way of knowing how many failed universes preceded this one due to constants being out of bounds; therefore, we shouldn't even be using a probability calculation because we have insufficient data.
