How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Boss]

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

A universe tuned by gravity.

Which is tuned.

 

[Boss]

You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.

Yes, generally speaking, in English grammar, a verb ending in the suffix "-ed" implies a noun sometimes with the prefix "-er" as it's subject. Fucked<>Fucker... Owned<>Owner... Trolled<>Troller... Diverted<>Diverter...

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

So, you agree? Your argument is circular?

No, my argument is not circular. YOUR argument is circular. You reason the universe exists as it does because it has to exist as it does.

We went over this. I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to explain why the universe exists. You are. And you're failing to make a coherent case fur your position.

Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. From there, I don't think physical science can really answer why. My personal answer satisfies me, it doesn't have to satisfy others.

You did indeed tell us why you think the fine tuned universe exists... You said it's because it has to exist. I say that's not science but circular reasoning. I agree, it does exist finely tuned because it has to. It couldn't exist otherwise.

As to who/what question, I answered that fairly and objectively by presenting the four possibilities... did I miss anything? So my position is that those are the four possibilities. I explained why I dismissed two of them, and I admitted my own spiritually guided bias. I don't argue my bias is physical or I can prove it to you. It's just my opinion. When it comes down to it, this is a matter of faith.

 

[amrchaos]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

 

[Hollie]

You admit that the word 'tuned' implies a 'tuner'.

Yes, generally speaking, in English grammar, a verb ending in the suffix "-ed" implies a noun sometimes with the prefix "-er" as it's subject. Fucked<>Fucker... Owned<>Owner... Trolled<>Troller... Diverted<>Diverter...

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

So, you agree? Your argument is circular?

No, my argument is not circular. YOUR argument is circular. You reason the universe exists as it does because it has to exist as it does.

We went over this. I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to explain why the universe exists. You are. And you're failing to make a coherent case fur your position.

Well in case you missed the last 5-6 pages, there seems to be a debate over whether or not the universe is finely tuned. My arguments have been mostly in establishing this is indeed a fact. From there, I don't think physical science can really answer why. My personal answer satisfies me, it doesn't have to satisfy others.

You did indeed tell us why you think the fine tuned universe exists... You said it's because it has to exist. I say that's not science but circular reasoning. I agree, it does exist finely tuned because it has to. It couldn't exist otherwise.

As to who/what question, I answered that fairly and objectively by presenting the four possibilities... did I miss anything? So my position is that those are the four possibilities. I explained why I dismissed two of them, and I admitted my own spiritually guided bias. I don't argue my bias is physical or I can prove it to you. It's just my opinion. When it comes down to it, this is a matter of faith.

There's no debate about your gawds "fine tuning" of the universe. You never made any case in support of your gawds, firstly, and secondly, there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.

You're representing a christian fundamentalist argument with your "tuning" scenario and presenting nothing to indicate any "tuning"

 

[Hollie]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

Nah. This is all about Bossy, his viciously circular arguments, his invented spirit realms and carrying on through multiple threads trying to recruit converts to his religion.

 

[Boss]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

 

[edthecynic]

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

A universe tuned by gravity.

Which is tuned.

By gravity.

 

[Boss]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

Nah. This is all about Bossy, his viciously circular arguments, his invented spirit realms and carrying on through multiple threads trying to recruit converts to his religion.

Nah, this is all about Hollie suppressing some deep-rooted event in her past which has caused her to starve her spirit to death instead of nourishing it.

 

[Boss]

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

A universe tuned by gravity.

Which is tuned.

By gravity.

Which can't work unless it's tuned finely.... precisely.

 

[Boss]

...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.

Are you calling Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein liars?

 

[Hollie]

...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.

Are you calling Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein liars?

Are you 12years old? This may come as a shock to you but none of those folks you listed made any connection with your gawds and those designer gawds connected to the natural world.

Really, Bossy, I get it. You have an insensate need to proselytize but you're over the top with stumbling and contradicting your own comments as you use your gawds to badger people.

You read too much into euphemisms and don't understand context because you have predefined conclusions regarding your fundamentalist religious views and the natural world.

 

[edthecynic]

...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.

Are you calling Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein liars?

Prove they are infallible!

 

[Hollie]

Therefore, TUNED implies a TUNER.

A universe tuned by gravity.

Which is tuned.

By gravity.

Which can't work unless it's tuned finely.... precisely.

False. Precisely. The natural forces that interact In the universe have no connection to your gawds who are sitting on their magical thrones in their magical flowing nightgowns directly navigating the planets in their respective orbits.

Of course, you could begin by proving your gawds, then in turn, identifying your gawds actually do wear long flowing nightgowns while directly manipulating the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, pulling rabbits out of a hat, etc.

Got anything like that?

No, I knew you didn't.

 

[amrchaos]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

 

[Boss]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

The fact that science can't deny or avoid the problems of a precisely and finely-tuned universe is not an "argument." We can have different opinions but the constants are there and the evidence is empirical. The question of why the universe is finely tuned is beyond the ability of science to answer at this time, and probably ever. All other options require faith.

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work is if the numbers you are given are the exact factors you are multiplying by and not deviation for some specific digit in the constant.

However, if that was the case, then this whole "Fine tune" argument is junk--multiplication by those factors is causing forces to vanish in those models. Gravitational constant multiple by 2x10^-9---You pretty much made a force vanish by algebra--not change a digit at 8th or 9th place.

The scope of the factor is too large/microscopic to talk about "fine tuning"n or precision. The range of possible values it still great between what we measure and what is being assumed for gravitational collapse.

I did not pick that up and until I read that Rees quote. He is not suggesting that the 5 th digit of the gravitational constant be changed and these things happen--He is saying that if the gravitational constant was about a million times weaker or stronger this problem would be present.

A factor of 1 million is not a precision measurement--and the concept that a difference of a factor of a million suggests high precision fine tuning is a bit of a reach to me.

If you want to talk fine tuning--keep the factor within the statitistical margin of error such as 5%(i.e factors of 1.05 or .95). If we are talking about values outside of the statistical model of error, then we are not talking about acceptable forms of precision which "fine tuning" suggests!

It seems you are still talking about things we measure and how accurate we are at measuring them. This simply doesn't matter to the physical constant which is empirical regardless of our ability to measure. The constant exists in constant state whether we can accurately measure it or not. Without this finely-tuned constant, gravity doesn't function. It does not matter what we are able to measure.

 

[Boss]

...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.

Are you calling Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein liars?

Prove they are infallible!

I didn't argue they are infallible. They have all stated "fine tuning" of the universe in some way. Are they religious whackos trying to sell us their religions?

 

[Hollie]

Good

So we are leaving the presup. argument of "fine tuning" and heading back to the more respectable experiential argument of spiritualism in inexplicable phenomenon?

Nah. This is all about Bossy, his viciously circular arguments, his invented spirit realms and carrying on through multiple threads trying to recruit converts to his religion.

Nah, this is all about Hollie suppressing some deep-rooted event in her past which has caused her to starve her spirit to death instead of nourishing it.

I anticipated you would sidestep and deflect but that is a pattern of behavior for you. Your entire argument is not just similar to that coming out of christian creation ministries, it is identical.

What is comically tragic is that you have never chosen to critically examine the self-destructing nature of the arguments you further on behalf of your christian creation ministries. On the one hand, you fundies argue that, given the laws of the universe, the probability for biological evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is zero because of various, silly, irreducible complexity-type nonsense furthered by Dembski, Meyer and the Disco'tute freak show. So therefore, jeebus and Jeebus Sr. must have invervened to circumvent those laws.

Another argument says that the probability for life developing on earth was near guaranteed given the particular circumstances of this planet, and because a random set of laws could not have produced this outcome, then the gawds must have designed those laws.

However, this suggests that the gawds designed the laws of the universe just so that they would eventually have to come back and violate their own laws in order to *poof* life on the planet. That’s pretty contrived but considering the fundamentalist arguments... pretty typical.

The real beauty opf the ID'iot creationist argument is that you can take any event and claim that the gawds both designed supernatural laws to make the event possible but at the same time were able to violate those same laws in order to make it happen. No matter how contrived the argument, you Fundie Christians can find an exception by way of the supernatural abilities of your gawds.

 

[Boss]

The only way I can even see you making this fine tune argument work...

Again--- Not an argument I have to make work. This is an empirical physical constant, it is not up for debate. You can chose to ignore physics and not believe mathematics if you want. If that's the case. I don't need to win an argument with you.

 

[Hollie]

...there's nothing to indicate any "tuning" within the universe.

Are you calling Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein liars?

Prove they are infallible!

I didn't argue they are infallible. They have all stated "fine tuning" of the universe in some way. Are they religious whackos trying to sell us their religions?

They're not the religious whackos.

The "quotes" you quote-mined are a staple of the fundie christian cabal and are taken out of a larger context where in no way do the quote'ees suggest "the gawds did it".

It's just a typically dishonest tactic of religious extremists.

 

[Boss]

...violate their own laws in order to *poof* life on the planet.

My position is, it does not matter what you believe... SOMETHING poofed life onto the planet.