Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[SteveII]

Physicists posit a multiverse for the express reason to overcome the odds of getting the constants we have? Are you saying they are wrong?

This is yet another misrepresentation.  Physicists originally proposed the multiverse as an implication of Alan Guth's work on inflation.  It's a canard that the multiverse theory was originated to solve the fine tuning problem.

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse.

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."

http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-co...waves.html

I will respond to your other comments later, but I researched this one first: You are correct and I am wrong. The multiverse was first hypothesized as part of inflationary theory.  The concept has been used quite a bit to explain away the fine-tuning of our universe.

[SteveII]

I read the whole article. It does not support your assertion other than a theory (perhaps M-Theory), when it is formulated, can answer the question. That does not sound settled to me.

How did we get from your claiming that there is no debate that the physical constants can take on different values to this?  That the matter was not settled was my whole point.  You're simply agreeing with me.

I did some reading on M-theory. First, there is not one bit of physical evidence for it. Second, it posits as many as 10^500 different possible membranes (parallel universes) that could be right next to us. With that many universes--each with a different possibility of constants, it does not address the fine-tuning issue of why ours is the way it is. Third, it is not clear that whatever created the 'cosmic landscape' (multiverse?) would not have to have been finely tuned to create universes with laws and structure (kicking the can upstairs). Fourth, since it is very much in question whether the theory can ever be tested, isn't it just philosophy and not science?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I really don't see how multiverse theory changes anything. As SteveII said, if you add up all the different "universes" into one totality that becomes the the universe. That new bigger universe still must be ordered in such a way to produce this "little" old universe. Also, it doesn't really help the skeptical cause to say everything can be explained naturally and then say there are other universes with alternative natures. Seems odd.

[Angrboda]

How did we get from your claiming that there is no debate that the physical constants can take on different values to this?  That the matter was not settled was my whole point.  You're simply agreeing with me.

I did some reading on M-theory. First, there is not one bit of physical evidence for it. Second, it posits as many as 10^500 different possible membranes (parallel universes) that could be right next to us. With that many universes--each with a different possibility of constants, it does not address the fine-tuning issue of why ours is the way it is. Third, it is not clear that whatever created the 'cosmic landscape' (multiverse?) would not have to have been finely tuned to create universes with laws and structure (kicking the can upstairs). Fourth, since it is very much in question whether the theory can ever be tested, isn't it just philosophy and not science?

You seem to be having a discussion with yourself. I simply disputed your claim that there is no debate whether the values of physical constants can take on different values. Far from there being no debate about it, I showed that the quest for a unified theory which would explain all the physical constants is very much alive. Whether it's M-theory or another, the idea that there is no debate as to whether these constants can take on different values is rubbish. You rule out chance for dubious reasons, and you try to rule out necessity by simply declaring that nobody takes the possibility seriously, despite the fact that they do. Your chance, necessity or design trilemma is less settled than you will admit. Whether it's M-theory or not, the notion that the physical constants are the way they are for naturalistic reasons is not something you can rule out at this stage.

[masterofpuppets]

I did some reading on M-theory. First, there is not one bit of physical evidence for it. Second, it posits as many as 10^500 different possible membranes (parallel universes) that could be right next to us. With that many universes--each with a different possibility of constants, it does not address the fine-tuning issue of why ours is the way it is. Third, it is not clear that whatever created the 'cosmic landscape' (multiverse?) would not have to have been finely tuned to create universes with laws and structure (kicking the can upstairs). Fourth, since it is very much in question whether the theory can ever be tested, isn't it just philosophy and not science?

You seem to be having a discussion with yourself.  I simply disputed your claim  that there is no debate whether the values of physical constants can take on different values.   Far from there being no debate about it, I showed that the quest for a unified theory which would explain all the physical constants is very much alive.  Whether it's M-theory or another, the idea that there is no debate as to whether these constants can take on different values is rubbish.  You rule out chance for irrational reasons, and you try to rule out necessity by simply declaring that nobody takes the possibility seriously, despite the fact that they do.  Your chance, necessity or design trilemma is less settled than you will admit.  Whether it's M-theory or not, the notion that the physical constants are the way they are for naturalistic reasons is not something you can rule out at this stage.

As Sean Carroll explains in his debate with WLC, physicists have built viable models where the probability of universes having "suitable" constants approaches 1, and these are actually scientific explanations that fit the data and can make predictions. "God did it" is just philosophical nonsense with no explanatory or predictive power. I think we're actually all tending to the conclusion that no gods exist.

[Amarok]

Nope multiverse eliminates the need for fine tuning hands down no matter how much denial theists engage in and yes M theory is a valid model founded on empirical data might wanna stop getting your science from apologists

[Whateverist]

Nope multiverse eliminates the need for fine tuning hands down no matter how much denial theists engage in and yes M theory is a valid model founded on empirical data might wanna stop getting your science from apologists

Though I doubt seriously that anyone working on such questions in science gives a rats ass about the implications for apologist arguments for God.  I can't believe anyone in the field is motivated by those kinds of considerations.

[Pat Mustard]

Yes, and it has also been conclusively proven that a) what you consider evidence for fine tuning is not evidence, and b) even if fine tuning were real there is no current way to lead from fine tuning to god (for example the multiverse hypothesis is a much more plausible way to explain fine tuning than the god hypothesis, at least the multiverse actually agrees with what we know of reality, your god hypothesis flat out contradicts it).

So again, what evidence is there of fine tuning?

You continue to misunderstand the term "finely-tuned". It is a simple summary of the facts that the initial constants are mind-boggling precise to allow for our universe and for life. It is not a statement of intention. It does not itself imply a designer. It is simply a handy summary of the facts.

What evidence is there for fine tuning?

---

If you multiply just a few of these odds together (to get a combined probability), you have a number with so many zeros, there are not that many molecules in the universe. So, chance is out.

Anybody who knows anything about statistics and probabilities knows that in order to get the cumulative probability of a number of different events simple multiplication of individual probabilities is a bonheadedly stupid idea. You ave to correct for many things first, such as the interrelation of the events, the likelihood of a different result having the same outcome and so on.

For the first consider working on a ward as a nurse for a year where the p value for a patient dying is .5 (50% chance). Over the course of twenty years moving from ward to ward with the same probabilities multiplication will give you a probability value of .5^20 an astronomically small probability. The real probability is much higher.

For the second consider you're a mother whose two toddler children have died. The police say murder because it is an unusual set of events you say SIDS because they died asleep in their cots. You're convicted of murder partly on "expert" testimony multiplying the chances of each child dying of SIDS as if they were totally independant events. Proper research shows double murder in cases like this are 1/2 as likely as SIDS deaths.

[Pat Mustard]

You seem to be having a discussion with yourself.  I simply disputed your claim  that there is no debate whether the values of physical constants can take on different values.   Far from there being no debate about it, I showed that the quest for a unified theory which would explain all the physical constants is very much alive.  Whether it's M-theory or another, the idea that there is no debate as to whether these constants can take on different values is rubbish.  You rule out chance for irrational reasons, and you try to rule out necessity by simply declaring that nobody takes the possibility seriously, despite the fact that they do.  Your chance, necessity or design trilemma is less settled than you will admit.  Whether it's M-theory or not, the notion that the physical constants are the way they are for naturalistic reasons is not something you can rule out at this stage.

As Sean Carroll explains in his debate with WLC, physicists have built viable models where the probability of universes having "suitable" constants approaches 1, and these are actually scientific explanations that fit the data and can make predictions. "God did it" is just philosophical nonsense with no explanatory or predictive power. I think we're actually all tending to the conclusion that no gods exist.

Pfft, scientists! Real life has provided a model of a universe where the probability of having the right conditions for life is 1.

[SteveII]

I did some reading on M-theory. First, there is not one bit of physical evidence for it. Second, it posits as many as 10^500 different possible membranes (parallel universes) that could be right next to us. With that many universes--each with a different possibility of constants, it does not address the fine-tuning issue of why ours is the way it is. Third, it is not clear that whatever created the 'cosmic landscape' (multiverse?) would not have to have been finely tuned to create universes with laws and structure (kicking the can upstairs). Fourth, since it is very much in question whether the theory can ever be tested, isn't it just philosophy and not science?

You seem to be having a discussion with yourself.  I simply disputed your claim  that there is no debate whether the values of physical constants can take on different values.   Far from there being no debate about it, I showed that the quest for a unified theory which would explain all the physical constants is very much alive.  Whether it's M-theory or another, the idea that there is no debate as to whether these constants can take on different values is rubbish.  You rule out chance for dubious reasons, and you try to rule out necessity by simply declaring that nobody takes the possibility seriously, despite the fact that they do.  Your chance, necessity or design trilemma is less settled than you will admit.  Whether it's M-theory or not, the notion that the physical constants are the way they are for naturalistic reasons is not something you can rule out at this stage.

I understand your point--with one clarification on my claim. M-theory, with its 10^500 possible universes does not seem like it weighs on on the necessity question.

---

Nope multiverse eliminates the need for fine tuning hands down no matter how much denial theists engage in and yes M theory is a valid model founded on empirical data might wanna stop getting your science from apologists

There are several problems all in one sentence. 

1. Except the multiverse a) isn't science and b) does not remove the question what fine-tuned the multiverse to be able to reliably spit out trillions of universes with varying physical laws and constants? 
2. M-theory is an incomplete math model--not science and certainly not empirical data.