@Angrboda
Which makes it a moot point and the hill you choose to die on. Nor do we need to know if they could be different to ascertain the universe is fine-tuned for life.
In science, "fine-tuning" refers to the idea that certain fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe are incredibly precisely set for life to exist. These parameters, such as the laws of physics and the values of constants like the gravitational constant, must fall within a very narrow range to allow for the formation of stars, planets, and the complex molecules necessary for life.
Do you think scientists who stake their reputation on the claim we live in a multiverse never considered your brilliant objection that for some unknown reason the universe had to come out as it did and that way was to allow life? No they avoid that argument because its not much different than saying the universe had to come out with the properties for life because it was intentionally caused for that purpose. Secondly as I wrote to you motherboards are fine-tuned to perform calculations and designed to come out exactly the same already fine-tuned.
No, the key argument is that they are tuned for life to exist. It makes not a slightest difference if they had to be that way.
If there's no evidence the universe had to come out as it did then it's not a sound argument. In legal parlance you're offering facts not in evidence. But for the sake of argument if it did 'have' to come out as it did how does it look any different than a circuit board deliberately designed to fine tolerances?
A red herring is a diversionary tactic, either in writing or conversation, that distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant topic or clue. It's used to mislead or confuse, often to avoid answering a direct question or shifting the focus of a discussion
The main issue is scientists tell us the universe is fine-tuned for life. In part for this reason they invoke multiverse theory. I don't care if my response satisfies you.
Quote:I'm not invoking any specific explanation. I'm pointing out that we simply don't know one way or another whether the characteristics could be other than what they are.
Which makes it a moot point and the hill you choose to die on. Nor do we need to know if they could be different to ascertain the universe is fine-tuned for life.
Quote:Since any argument that a creator had to tune such things requires that they needed to be tuned, no such argument can get off the ground without some evidence that they would have needed tuning.
In science, "fine-tuning" refers to the idea that certain fundamental constants and initial conditions of the universe are incredibly precisely set for life to exist. These parameters, such as the laws of physics and the values of constants like the gravitational constant, must fall within a very narrow range to allow for the formation of stars, planets, and the complex molecules necessary for life.
Do you think scientists who stake their reputation on the claim we live in a multiverse never considered your brilliant objection that for some unknown reason the universe had to come out as it did and that way was to allow life? No they avoid that argument because its not much different than saying the universe had to come out with the properties for life because it was intentionally caused for that purpose. Secondly as I wrote to you motherboards are fine-tuned to perform calculations and designed to come out exactly the same already fine-tuned.
Quote: It is a key premise of the argument from fine tuning that they could be or had to be tuned.
No, the key argument is that they are tuned for life to exist. It makes not a slightest difference if they had to be that way.
Quote:If there's no evidence for this, then it isn't a sound argument for God. Since it has a material impact on the argument and issues in question, it is not a red herring. Though I will welcome any explanation from you as to why you think it is.
If there's no evidence the universe had to come out as it did then it's not a sound argument. In legal parlance you're offering facts not in evidence. But for the sake of argument if it did 'have' to come out as it did how does it look any different than a circuit board deliberately designed to fine tolerances?
A red herring is a diversionary tactic, either in writing or conversation, that distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant topic or clue. It's used to mislead or confuse, often to avoid answering a direct question or shifting the focus of a discussion
The main issue is scientists tell us the universe is fine-tuned for life. In part for this reason they invoke multiverse theory. I don't care if my response satisfies you.
