Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're perpetually befuddled. Physics makes no claim to resolve gawds or spirit realms.It's not an argument. It's your specious claim, totally absent meaningful support.Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.
Well Big G is finely tuned. That IS the argument.
Back to trolling the ICR for you.
It's not my specious claim, it's Physics. Meaningfully supported by every scientist who ever used G in a formula.
You're perpetually befuddled. Physics makes no claim to resolve gawds or spirit realms.It's not an argument. It's your specious claim, totally absent meaningful support.Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.
Well Big G is finely tuned. That IS the argument.
Back to trolling the ICR for you.
It's not my specious claim, it's Physics. Meaningfully supported by every scientist who ever used G in a formula.
The inspiration you receive from crank christian fundamentalist websites and their silly "finely tuned" nonsense is not supported by scientists who used G in a formula. Claiming that natural forces somehow supports various gawds is strictly a promotion spewed by your heroes at the ICR.
The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.
Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective.
I guess. I just don't see the connection between the argument, and the conviction that a designer is responsible.
Well, if the universe is finely tuned it (and it is), how can that avoid implying a tuner? Exactly who or what that is, we can only speculate. There is not an explanation in science which has been substantiated by evidence. All you have in science are theories and we can't test them.
Well, your phrasing is the only thing that imposes the implication ("tuned" implying a "tuner"). But recognizing that existing conditions are rare and specific - which is really all that your evidence supports - doesn't imply anything.
Not so much insults as addressing the pointless arguments you recycle from post to post and thread to thread. What's even more remarkable is to view your comments regarding the "finely tuned" universe, your comments regarding your belief in gawds, and your propensity for invoking your spirit realms while suggesting none of that is related to your fundamentalist religious views.You're perpetually befuddled. Physics makes no claim to resolve gawds or spirit realms.It's not an argument. It's your specious claim, totally absent meaningful support.Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.
Well Big G is finely tuned. That IS the argument.
Back to trolling the ICR for you.
It's not my specious claim, it's Physics. Meaningfully supported by every scientist who ever used G in a formula.
The inspiration you receive from crank christian fundamentalist websites and their silly "finely tuned" nonsense is not supported by scientists who used G in a formula. Claiming that natural forces somehow supports various gawds is strictly a promotion spewed by your heroes at the ICR.
Physics resolves there is an empirical physical constant known as the "gravitational constant" and scientists have been using this in formulas for a few centuries or so. I've not claimed anything supports any God. It's you who is idiotically demanding physical proof of the spiritual and me telling you that's impossible without making the spiritual physical.
And I am never befuddled... only perplexed. I wonder what you can possibly be getting out of re-posting the same garbage every day? Doesn't this get boring? I mean, you know that I am going to respond to being accused of religious fanaticism the same today as yesterday, and it will be the same tomorrow.
Usually, when people argue, there is something they are trying to get the other person to see. But your arguments aren't really arguments because you're not trying to get me to see anything. You're just hurling insults, or what you think are insults, at me. And what is so weird is, it's the same insults day after day!
"We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't. That slogan is another you recycle from post to post and it's as pointless and undemonstrated now as in all the previous times you've used it.The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.
Nope... The problem is you are unable to maintain perspective.
I guess. I just don't see the connection between the argument, and the conviction that a designer is responsible.
Well, if the universe is finely tuned it (and it is), how can that avoid implying a tuner? Exactly who or what that is, we can only speculate. There is not an explanation in science which has been substantiated by evidence. All you have in science are theories and we can't test them.
Well, your phrasing is the only thing that imposes the implication ("tuned" implying a "tuner"). But recognizing that existing conditions are rare and specific - which is really all that your evidence supports - doesn't imply anything.
Things are rare and specific and there is no logical reason we should find them to be. In fact, it is much more probable that we wouldn't find this fine tuning in the universe. Not to this degree.
I mean, come on guy... This is the analogy to fit the argument, you go into the casino and there are 12 roulette wheels, each has 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion numbers... You pick one number and lay all your money on it. One shot in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... YOU WIN! You do this 11 more times and WIN! Do you think that is random chance happening? Are you really lucky or is there a possibility something else is going on?
The finely tuned universe is problematic for science because it isn't explainable. This is why you see people like Hollie and Ed rejecting it and trying to pretend it is nonsense. But it's the truth and we have to accept it as such, whether it supports our "religion" or not.
Perhaps you can explain to us how arguments based on fear, superstition and ignorance can further our knowledge?
I've noticed an obvious pattern of behavior. When you're pressed to support your religiously based slogans such as those for your gawds "fine tuning" the universe, you hope to deflect. The relevant science community has never made any such statement that there is any such mechanism as "fine tuning" of the universe and no comment that the universe has a supernatural cause.Perhaps you can explain to us how arguments based on fear, superstition and ignorance can further our knowledge?
You'd be the best one to ask about that. You're the one rejecting Newtonian and Einsteinian physics based on fear of Christians and ignorance about the difference between superstitious and spiritual.
Why don't we start over... Tell us about why you hate Christians so much? What happened to you personally to effect your demeanor and attitude toward people who are religious? Let's dig into your past and find what event happened which made you so bitter and angry? I think something hurt you deeply and you've never had closure.
A lot of times, this revolves around a relationship issue where religion becomes a convenient scapegoat. You couldn't get along with your father who was religious so you avoid accepting any blame for that by blaming it on his religious views. Not saying that is the case with you, just an example. However, there is some reason you have such deep animosity toward religion and that's not healthy for you.
I mean, come on guy... This is the analogy to fit the argument, you go into the casino and there are 12 roulette wheels, each has 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion numbers... You pick one number and lay all your money on it. One shot in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... YOU WIN! You do this 11 more times and WIN! Do you think that is random chance happening? Are you really lucky or is there a possibility something else is going on?
Well no, it hasn't. Why not support your specious claims? Why insist on making such bellicose and fraudulent pronouncements when they are unsupportable?"We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't.
Well... except that, YES, it has.
I mean, come on guy... This is the analogy to fit the argument, you go into the casino and there are 12 roulette wheels, each has 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion numbers... You pick one number and lay all your money on it. One shot in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... YOU WIN! You do this 11 more times and WIN! Do you think that is random chance happening? Are you really lucky or is there a possibility something else is going on?
That's an excellent analogy for the fine tuning argument. Except that the only awareness we have is of the one spin, the one reality we find ourselves in. The thing is the odds of any specific combination of all the possible variables is exactly the same.
To take a slightly different variation on that analogy. Imagine rolling a thousand dice and every single one of them landing on a six. By your reckoning, this would be evidence of "something else going on". But the odds of that happening are exactly the same as all the dice landing on a one. They're also exactly the same odds as exactly half the dice being ones and the rest sixes. The odds of all the dice being sixes and one of them being a three? Again, exactly the same as the odds of them being all sixes.
The reason the universe is perfectly suited to our existence is that our existence is wholly dependent on the universe being perfectly suited to our existence. Just as any other possible universes would be perfectly suited to any beings that evolved there - and vice versa. It logically could be no other way.
Yet, you were pontificating in post 1120: "Nothing is proven, not even reality"I mean, come on guy... This is the analogy to fit the argument, you go into the casino and there are 12 roulette wheels, each has 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion numbers... You pick one number and lay all your money on it. One shot in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion... YOU WIN! You do this 11 more times and WIN! Do you think that is random chance happening? Are you really lucky or is there a possibility something else is going on?
That's an excellent analogy for the fine tuning argument. Except that the only awareness we have is of the one spin, the one reality we find ourselves in. The thing is the odds of any specific combination of all the possible variables is exactly the same.
To take a slightly different variation on that analogy. Imagine rolling a thousand dice and every single one of them landing on a six. By your reckoning, this would be evidence of "something else going on". But the odds of that happening are exactly the same as all the dice landing on a one. They're also exactly the same odds as exactly half the dice being ones and the rest sixes. The odds of all the dice being sixes and one of them being a three? Again, exactly the same as the odds of them being all sixes.
The reason the universe is perfectly suited to our existence is that our existence is wholly dependent on the universe being perfectly suited to our existence. Just as any other possible universes would be perfectly suited to any beings that evolved there - and vice versa. It logically could be no other way.
I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.
Well no, it hasn't. Why not support your specious claims? Why insist on making such bellicose and fraudulent pronouncements when they are unsupportable?"We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't.
Well... except that, YES, it has.
Kindly refer us to an article published in a peer reviewed literature such as the journal Nature, for example where the relevant science community acknowledges a universe "finely tuned" by your gawds?
Not Physics.Gawwwwd-da has spoken.If the empirical physical constant known as the 'gravitational constant' were off by a hair, gravity doesn't work.
Not God, Physics.
Gawwwd-da now speaks for all physicists, without knowing a thing about physics. How could anyone doubt Gawwwwd-da.It's not an argument. It's your specious claim, totally absent meaningful support.Again, we are not arguing G, we are arguing your "fine tuned" bullshit.
Well Big G is finely tuned. That IS the argument.
Back to trolling the ICR for you.
It's not my specious claim, it's Physics. Meaningfully supported by every scientist who ever used G in a formula.
Therefore your pontifications about a finely tuned G is unproven.[Nothing is proven, not even reality.
Well no, it hasn't. Why not support your specious claims? Why insist on making such bellicose and fraudulent pronouncements when they are unsupportable?"We" haven't found any "fine tuning" in the universe. Science certainly hasn't.
Well... except that, YES, it has.
Kindly refer us to an article published in a peer reviewed literature such as the journal Nature, for example where the relevant science community acknowledges a universe "finely tuned" by your gawds?
I didn't say who it was finely tuned by.
Here are what some prominent scientists say:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." --Stephen Hawking 1988. A Brief History of Time,Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125.
If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead ofdeuterium and helium.
--Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71
Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12]
N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]
Epsilon (ε), the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[12]
Omega (Ω), also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the Universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12]
Lambda (λ) is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the Universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[13] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]
Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the Universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.
Nothing is proven, not even reality.
Physics resolves there is an empirical physical constant known as the "gravitational constant" and scientists have been using this in formulas for a few centuries or so.
Nothing is proven, not even reality.
I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.
I don't understand what you are trying to say about random odds. Letting me know the universe is tuned as it is because it needs to be, is not a scientific explanation. Anything we know as a being can't evolve in a universe with no material reality, no stars or planets, no chemistry or gravity. These are made possible through a series of constants, ratios, weights and forces. It's not that the universe is suited to our existence, the universe is suited to ANY existence in material reality.
I'm saying your argument is circular. You start out with the assumption that physical reality is created by applying the word "tuned" (implying a "tuner"). It's really just another version of the watchmaker argument. You're saying that the fact that we ended up in, of all possible universes, the one that enables our existence is evidence of intent. But where's the connection? Again, all you're really saying is "if things were different, they'd be different" (and we'd likely not exist). But so what? Why does that imply a creator?
