The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[MG 2.0]

Note what Weinberg did not say. He offered no evidence that those constants could be fine tuned in that manner. Show me one, just one, other universe that has different values or ratios than ours. You can’t. Just like you can’t show me a multiverse or a string. They are all mathematical theories that we can’t test.

Well, gee whiz, you've got me there. Excuse me for a few eons while I go check out another universe. my gosh, I think you have every reason to keep on truckin' at being an atheist.

I'll get back with you on that. Ha ha.

But don't stay too close to the computer waiting for the results.

By the way, I think each of the arguments against fine tuning being evidence for an intelligence behind the design that have been brought up on this thread have been discussed here:

https://crossexamined.org/mistaken-obje ... ne-tuning/

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Note what Weinberg did not say. He offered no evidence that those constants could be fine tuned in that manner. Show me one, just one, other universe that has different values or ratios than ours. You can’t. Just like you can’t show me a multiverse or a string. They are all mathematical theories that we can’t test.

Well, gee whiz, you've got me there. Excuse me for a few eons while I go check out another universe. my gosh, I think you have every reason to keep on truckin' at being an atheist.

I'll get back with you on that. Ha ha.

But don't stay too close to the computer waiting for the results.

By the way, I think each of the arguments against fine tuning being evidence for an intelligence behind the design that have been brought up on this thread have been discussed here:

https://crossexamined.org/mistaken-obje ... ne-tuning/

Regards,
MG

That’s how evidence works, MG. Sometimes it’s inaccessible. That’s not license to pretend like you have evidence. Your fine tuning argument stands on no former ground than the string theory and multi-verse theories that you speak of pejoratively.

So, what in your link refutes the fact that there is no evidence that the numbers and rations you cite can be fine tuned out or that the universe is so hostile to human life that, even if it was fine tuned, the odds that it was fine tuned for human life are essentially zero? No special pleading allowed just because you happen to be a human.

[MG 2.0]

Well, gee whiz, you've got me there. Excuse me for a few eons while I go check out another universe. my gosh, I think you have every reason to keep on truckin' at being an atheist.

I'll get back with you on that. Ha ha.

But don't stay too close to the computer waiting for the results.

By the way, I think each of the arguments against fine tuning being evidence for an intelligence behind the design that have been brought up on this thread have been discussed here:

https://crossexamined.org/mistaken-obje ... ne-tuning/

Regards,
MG

That’s how evidence works, MG. Sometimes it’s inaccessible. That’s not license to pretend like you have evidence. Your fine tuning argument stands on no former ground than the string theory and multi-verse theories that you speak of pejoratively.

So, what in your link refutes the fact that there is no evidence that the numbers and rations you cite can be fine tuned out or that the universe is so hostile to human life that, even if it was fine tuned, the odds that it was fine tuned for human life are essentially zero? No special pleading allowed just because you happen to be a human.

Hi Res Ipsa, if you've spent any amount of time looking at the Fine Tuning Argument you are probably well aware that the opinions/evidence pro and con are going on day by day as we speak. I know you guys don't like me posting to sites because you think that it's more or less a way out of having to go through and explain everything from start to finish. And that's true. The fact is, if you haven't noticed, I'm a layperson and cannot explain scientific explorations in the same way that a scientist can. It's above my pay grade, but not theirs. Be that as it may, this site gives insights to both the arguments for and the arguments against Fine Tuning. If you want to sharpen your knowledge, I think you may find the back and forth worthwhile.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine ... neTuneCons

You and I can both find rational and convincing arguments to believe what we will.

On my way to another universe to see and observe whether or not the cosmological constants and the laws of physics are the same as in our universe!

Back later! Ha ha.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

That’s how evidence works, MG. Sometimes it’s inaccessible. That’s not license to pretend like you have evidence. Your fine tuning argument stands on no former ground than the string theory and multi-verse theories that you speak of pejoratively.

So, what in your link refutes the fact that there is no evidence that the numbers and rations you cite can be fine tuned out or that the universe is so hostile to human life that, even if it was fine tuned, the odds that it was fine tuned for human life are essentially zero? No special pleading allowed just because you happen to be a human.

Hi Res Ipsa, if you've spent any amount of time looking at the Fine Tuning Argument you are probably well aware that the opinions/evidence pro and con are going on day by day as we speak. I know you guys don't like me posting to sites because you think that it's more or less a way out of having to go through and explain everything from start to finish. And that's true. The fact is, if you haven't noticed, I'm a layperson and cannot explain scientific explorations in the same way that a scientist can. It's above my pay grade, but not theirs. Be that as it may, this site gives insights to both the arguments for and the arguments against Fine Tuning. If you want to sharpen your knowledge, I think you may find the back and forth worthwhile.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine ... neTuneCons

You and I can both find rational and convincing arguments to believe what we will.

On my way to another universe to see and observe whether or not the cosmological constants and the laws of physics are the same as in our universe!

Back later! Ha ha.

Regards,
MG

MG, I think that's a cop out. If you feel comfortable deploying the strong anthropic principle as an argument, you should understand it well enough to respond to counter arguments. I am also a lay person. But the criticisms of the SAP aren't highly technical science issues. They're basic issues in reasoning.

At bottom, your use of the SAP is no different than concluding that the fact that I won the lotto today is evidence that somebody intended me to win the lotto today. Sure, it's prettied up with fundamental constants and scientific jargon, but that's really all it is. In fact, it's worse, because you are just assuming, based on no evidence whatsoever, that a bunch of mathematical relationships that we observe come with little knobs that would allow someone to assign them any value they choose (or that the values are random, like drawing lotto balls). But we don't know enough to make even a rational guess at how many different combinations of those numbers there could be. We don't know whether there is only one or a zillion.

But, given that we live in a universe and that we can observe its properties, the odds of the universe existing in a form that we can exist and observe are 100%. To conclude otherwise is to commit the lottery fallacy. (An exceptionally bad case, given that we don't know how many balls there actually are or how many are drawn or whether the process is random at all.)

You don't need any specialized scientific knowledge to pose a counterargument to any of that.

The other arguments I made above also require no special scientific knowledge. The first is your inconsistent treatment of three untestable theories: treating the one that gives you the answer you like and sneering at the other two.

The second is objecting to the obvious special pleading that, when examining intention, [human] life is all that matters. But that's just special pleading based on your desire to have a creator that intended to create you. When 99.999999999% of the universe is hostile to the existence of human life, it's irrational to claim that the universe was "designed" for human life to occur. Again, no special scientific knowledge required.

Underlying it all is a rat's nest of fallacious thinking. Jumping from "I don't know" to "God diddit" is always fallacious thinking. I don't care how many variations on SAP one can invent. It's the equivalent of saying "Since I don't have the evidence to figure out the answer today, I can make up whatever I want." Sure, you can do that. But you can't pass it off as rational.

And spare me the quotes from smart guys. Smart guys are just as susceptible to irrational thinking as anyone else.

[MG 2.0]

Hi Res Ipsa, if you've spent any amount of time looking at the Fine Tuning Argument you are probably well aware that the opinions/evidence pro and con are going on day by day as we speak. I know you guys don't like me posting to sites because you think that it's more or less a way out of having to go through and explain everything from start to finish. And that's true. The fact is, if you haven't noticed, I'm a layperson and cannot explain scientific explorations in the same way that a scientist can. It's above my pay grade, but not theirs. Be that as it may, this site gives insights to both the arguments for and the arguments against Fine Tuning. If you want to sharpen your knowledge, I think you may find the back and forth worthwhile.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine ... neTuneCons

You and I can both find rational and convincing arguments to believe what we will.

On my way to another universe to see and observe whether or not the cosmological constants and the laws of physics are the same as in our universe!

Back later! Ha ha.

Regards,
MG

MG, I think that's a cop out. If you feel comfortable deploying the strong anthropic principle as an argument, you should understand it well enough to respond to counter arguments.

I get that. I do read the arguments and counter arguments and synthesize and consider the pros and cons of the apologists for FT and the counter arguments. But they're RIGHT THERE for all to see. That's why I post links that I believe are reputable and let others decide what they want to think based upon accurate information.

If that's a cop out, so be it.

I've read enough to realize that there are some strong arguments to be made which allow for a creator God. Yes, I do have a predisposition to believe in God. I've said that a number of times. We each are invested in our own worldviews for various reasons. I'm sure that you would recognize that. Once you have invested a significant amount of time and energy in your worldview and you are living a certain lifestyle that brings you comfort and fulfillment, it's hard to change, right?

We're all in that boat. But truth be told, if I felt that I was mistaken in my beliefs more than I was sure, I would bail. And I've said that a number of times also.

If you were to realize that your own worldview had some cracks in it at this point in your life would you have the courage to change? The thing is, we both are looking at and accepting various bits and bytes along the way and it is natural for us to give more credence to those bits and bytes that support and maintain our way of life that we have developed a pattern of living.

It takes a LOT of gumption for anyone of any stripe to make a change that impacts their life greatly. For both believer AND non believer.

I choose God. You don't. And that's OK. I believe God will judge your heart and mind. You think otherwise. And that's OK too.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Hi Res Ipsa, if you've spent any amount of time looking at the Fine Tuning Argument you are probably well aware that the opinions/evidence pro and con are going on day by day as we speak. I know you guys don't like me posting to sites because you think that it's more or less a way out of having to go through and explain everything from start to finish. And that's true. The fact is, if you haven't noticed, I'm a layperson and cannot explain scientific explorations in the same way that a scientist can. It's above my pay grade, but not theirs. Be that as it may, this site gives insights to both the arguments for and the arguments against Fine Tuning. If you want to sharpen your knowledge, I think you may find the back and forth worthwhile.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine ... neTuneCons

You and I can both find rational and convincing arguments to believe what we will.

On my way to another universe to see and observe whether or not the cosmological constants and the laws of physics are the same as in our universe!

Back later! Ha ha.

Regards,
MG

MG, I think that's a cop out. If you feel comfortable deploying the strong anthropic principle as an argument, you should understand it well enough to respond to counter arguments. I am also a lay person. But the criticisms of the SAP aren't highly technical science issues. They're basic issues in reasoning.

At bottom, your use of the SAP is no different than concluding that the fact that I won the lotto today is evidence that somebody intended me to win the lotto today. Sure, it's prettied up with fundamental constants and scientific jargon, but that's really all it is. In fact, it's worse, because you are just assuming, based on no evidence whatsoever, that a bunch of mathematical relationships that we observe come with little knobs that would allow someone to assign them any value they choose (or that the values are random, like drawing lotto balls). But we don't know enough to make even a rational guess at how many different combinations of those numbers there could be. We don't know whether there is only one or a zillion.

But, given that we live in a universe and that we can observe its properties, the odds of the universe existing in a form that we can exist and observe are 100%. To conclude otherwise is to commit the lottery fallacy. (An exceptionally bad case, given that we don't know how many balls there actually are or how many are drawn or whether the process is random at all.)

You don't need any specialized scientific knowledge to pose a counterargument to any of that.

The other arguments I made above also require no special scientific knowledge. The first is your inconsistent treatment of three untestable theories: treating the one that gives you the answer you like and sneering at the other two.

The second is objecting to the obvious special pleading that, when examining intention, [human] life is all that matters. But that's just special pleading based on your desire to have a creator that intended to create you. When 99.999999999% of the universe is hostile to the existence of human life, it's irrational to claim that the universe was "designed" for human life to occur. Again, no special scientific knowledge required.

Underlying it all is a rat's nest of fallacious thinking. Jumping from "I don't know" to "God diddit" is always fallacious thinking. I don't care how many variations on SAP one can invent. It's the equivalent of saying "Since I don't have the evidence to figure out the answer today, I can make up whatever I want." Sure, you can do that. But you can't pass it off as rational.

And spare me the quotes from smart guys. Smart guys are just as susceptible to irrational thinking as anyone else.

Well said. Especially this

But, given that we live in a universe and that we can observe its properties, the odds of the universe existing in a form that we can exist and observe are 100%. To conclude otherwise is to commit the lottery fallacy.

[MG 2.0]

The other arguments I made above also require no special scientific knowledge.

Understood.

The first is your inconsistent treatment of three untestable theories: treating the one that gives you the answer you like and sneering at the other two.

The second is objecting to the obvious special pleading that, when examining intention, [human] life is all that matters. But that's just special pleading based on your desire to have a creator that intended to create you.

I do believe that human life is the crown jewel of God's creation, yes. If we ARE His children why would one think otherwise? And it's not whether or not I "desire" that there is a creator, it's whether or not there is a creator. What is, is or isn't. I have no control over that.

When 99.999999999% of the universe is hostile to the existence of human life, it's irrational to claim that the universe was "designed" for human life to occur. Again, no special scientific knowledge required.

I don't think your premise is justified at all. What does the largeness of space and the universe have to do with the magnificence and awesomeness of sentient creatures that exercise free will and can progress indefinitely?

Underlying it all is a rat's nest of fallacious thinking. Jumping from "I don't know" to "God diddit" is always fallacious thinking. I don't care how many variations on SAP one can invent. It's the equivalent of saying "Since I don't have the evidence to figure out the answer today, I can make up whatever I want." Sure, you can do that. But you can't pass it off as rational.

One man's fallacious thinking is another guy's 'make sense' thinking. I mean really, isn't it a bit cocky on your part to be the final arbitrator between large groups of people that believe and think one way vs. another?

Now, if it was just me...

And spare me the quotes from smart guys. Smart guys are just as susceptible to irrational thinking as anyone else.

You are of course free to ignore the writing of others that may actually be smarter than you. They could accuse YOU of irrational thinking in a debate. You see that all the time in the Harvard Debates and other forums.

Don't get to caught up in your own pride Res Ipsa.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG, I think that's a cop out. If you feel comfortable deploying the strong anthropic principle as an argument, you should understand it well enough to respond to counter arguments.

I get that. I do read the arguments and counter arguments and synthesize and consider the pros and cons of the apologists for FT and the counter arguments. But they're RIGHT THERE for all to see. That's why I post links that I believe are reputable and let others decide what they want to think based upon accurate information.

If that's a cop out, so be it.

yes its a cop out.

... Once you have invested a significant amount of time and energy in your worldview and you are living a certain lifestyle that brings you comfort and fulfillment, it's hard to change, right?

We're all in that boat. But truth be told, if I felt that I was mistaken in my beliefs more than I was sure, I would bail. And I've said that a number of times also.

If you were to realize that your own worldview had some cracks in it at this point in your life would you have the courage to change? The thing is, we both are looking at and accepting various bits and bytes along the way and it is natural for us to give more credence to those bits and bytes that support and maintain our way of life that we have developed a pattern of living.

It takes a LOT of gumption for anyone of any stripe to make a change that impacts their life greatly.

You are really on the wrong track here. A lot of participants here have done exactly that- made a significant change in their lives. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean no one else has.

I choose God. You don't. And that's OK. I believe God will judge your heart and mind. You think otherwise. And that's OK too.

Here's a HUGE difference I see in how people post. You are the only one I've read so far whose beliefs include a supernatural being who you sure will reach out and judge people who don't "believe." You seem highly invested in that belief, that others will be punished for not believing as you do, and you mention it repeatedly. I haven't read a single other poster who believes in and is counting on such a vindictive god.

I mean really, isn't it a bit cocky on your part to be the final arbitrator between large groups of people that believe and think one way vs. another?

you mean like this

I choose God. You don't. And that's OK. I believe God will judge your heart and mind. You think otherwise. And that's OK too.

I'm having a really hard time believing that you, an adult, don't see the conflict between calling someone 'cocky' for doing exactly what you just did. How do you reconcile that? Or is it just a game for you?

[MG 2.0]

You seem highly invested in that belief, that others will be punished for not believing as you do, and you mention it repeatedly. I haven't read a single other poster who believes in and is counting on such a vindictive god.

Me, counting on a vindictive God?

No.

I mean really, isn't it a bit cocky on your part to be the final arbitrator between large groups of people that believe and think one way vs. another?

you mean like this

I choose God. You don't. And that's OK. I believe God will judge your heart and mind. You think otherwise. And that's OK too.

No. Not like that.

Regards,
MG

[¥akaSteelhead]

It's amusing to see MG treat String Theory and Multiverses as silly, when there is zero evidence that all of these numbers and ratios he list can be tuned differently in another universe. Show me another universe with different constants, and we'll have something to talk about. It's just as theoretical as string theory and multiverses. The only difference is that MG thinks it gets him to the answer he's already chosen.

The American Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist with a particular disdain for religion said that life “as we know it would be impossible if anyone of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” Weinberg also said that if the value of the cosmological constant were different by just one part in ten to the 120th power, life could not exist.

So life as we know it only exists because of the exactness and precision of all the features of the universe beginning with the Big Bang. If you’re comfortable going the reverse engineering route that ends up saying, “It is what it is”, then fine. I think you might find quite a few smart folks out there that will take issue with String Theory and Multiverse Theory. What does that leave you if both of these theories don’t pan out?

I think I’m pretty much done with this thread but wanted to jump in and point out that the fact that life even though sentient life is an astronomically small percentage of the mass of the known universe, that really doesn’t matter. What IS important is that life IS. There is nothing that Trump's the qualitative difference between sentient life and stardust.

My opinion anyway. And there isn’t any evidence to the contrary.

Regards,
MG

And the selfsame physicists proponents the multiverse theory - not the god did it theory. How does this help your case?

And yet, that the constants can be anything else has never been demonstrated, and our sample size of what they can be is ONE. Great argument.