Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[Left Coast]

It's a sad state of affairs when creationists are so desperate to rationalize their theism that they deny we have evidence for gravity. Yikes.

 

[leroy]

We can test apples falling from trees. How do we test your beliefs? By your standards

In the same way we can test that the universe is FT……………you arbitrarily claim “gravity” I claim “God”

@Darkstorn is a transcendent being since I claimed it.[/QUOTE]
And he is also an invisible guy that likes to push apples to the floor…………why is gravity a better explanation?

 

[Darkstorn]

Just a gravity of the gaps assertions, why not “I pooped fairies that cause apples to fall”

We can go with that. We'd be arguing from the same standards of quality as your OP though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the same way we can test that the universe is FT……………you arbitrarily claim “gravity” I claim “God”

@Darkstorn is a transcendent being since I claimed it.
And he is also an invisible guy that likes to push apples to the floor…………why is gravity a better explanation?

That is not an answer. Try again. I can explain multiple ways that gravity is tested. You are just waving your hands again.

How would you test your God claims?

 

[leroy]

That is not an answer. Try again. I can explain multiple ways that gravity is tested. You are just waving your hands again.

But none of these tests would be successful, because no matter what evidence you show , I can always say “ohhh Gravity of the Gaps” and ignore your arguments.

How would you test your God claims?

What claim specifically are you talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But none of these tests would be successful, because no matter what evidence you show , I can always say “ohhh Gravity of the Gaps” and ignore your arguments.





What claim specifically are you talking about?

Wrong again. You are projecting. Proper tests can falsify a theory if it is wrong. That can and has been done with gravity. It passed. How would you test your ideas? Without proper testing you have no evidence by definition.

 

[leroy]

OK @Subduction Zone @Darkstorn

Lets me see if I can put this conversation on track

I claim: Fine Tuning can not be due to chance

You answer: why no?

I say: because of the BB Paradox

You alternatives are to respond ether:

1 Granted I agree the BB Paradox disproves any chance hypothesis, but my point of disagreement is xxxxxxxxx which is why I dont accept the conclution of the sylogism

2 No I don’t agree, the BB Paradox doesn’t disprove chance hypothesis (in which case I would have to argue more and support my claim)

So which one do you pick 1 or 2?

 

[leroy]

Wrong again. You are projecting. Proper tests can falsify a theory if it is wrong. That can and has been done with gravity. It passed. How would you test your ideas? Without proper testing you have no evidence by definition.

We can test that the universe is FT

We can test that chance cant explain FT

We can test that physical necessity can’t explain it

And we can make predictions of future discoveries, for example once we discover the so called “theory of everything” I would predict that more FT will arise……..but maybe this theory solves FT problems and my argument would be falsified (therefore the argument is falsifiable and has predictive power)

Honestly what else do you what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

FT: The claim that some values (force of gravity, expansion of the universe, size of the particles, entropy, electromagnetic force etc.) fall within a narrow rage of life permitting values, such that if the values where a little bit different life would not be possible.





The bolzman brain paradox refutes any “chance” hypothesis that might exist.

The fact that these are multiple independent values, makes physical necessity implausible.

Hardly a paradox. It is merely an unsupported argument. Why give it any credence at all? This is your claim Merit, the Borden of proof lies upon you.

 

[Darkstorn]

I claim: Fine Tuning can not be due to chance

And that claim is the problem: We don't know the universe is fine tuned. You still need to support THIS claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can test that the universe is FT

We can test that chance cant explain FT

We can test that physical necessity can’t explain it

And we can make predictions of future discoveries, for example once we discover the so called “theory of everything” I would predict that more FT will arise……..but maybe this theory solves FT problems and my argument would be falsified (therefore the argument is falsifiable and has predictive power)

Honestly what else do you what?

How? Don't just make a claim. You would have to show that the fine tuning actually exists. Did you not see that your argument for the gravitational constant was refuted?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that claim is the problem: We don't know the universe is fine tuned. You still need to support THIS claim.

It appears that he thinks that he can win a debate by making endless.claims.

 

[ChristineM]

It appears that he thinks that he can win a debate by making endless.claims.

Which is why i gave up last week, it's as though he thinks repeating the same baseless claims makes godmagic real

 

[paarsurrey]

I am an ordinary man in the street. I wanted to understand as to why the gravitation gets created in the planets. I did not find the answer at the following site:
What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
Anybody to explain it please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am an ordinary man in the street. I wanted to understand as to why the gravitation gets created in the planets. I did not find the answer at the following site:
What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
Anybody to explain it please. Right, please?

Regards

What sort of answer are you looking for? If you want a real detailed one you will have to study this:

General relativity - Wikipedia

And even that is going to be over simplified.

 

[leroy]

And that claim is the problem: We don't know the universe is fine tuned. You still need to support THIS claim.

And that claim is the problem: We don't know the universe is fine tuned. You still need to support THIS claim.

@Subduction Zone

Source: the universe is FT

Abstract
Both the fundamental constants that describe the laws of physics and the cosmological parameters that determine the properties of our universe must fall within a range of values in order for the cosmos to develop astrophysical structures and ultimately support life.
The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others - ScienceDirect

So if you disagree with the fact that the universe is FT, please let me know why.

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I am an ordinary man in the street. I wanted to understand as to why the gravitation gets created in the planets. I did not find the answer at the following site:
What Is Gravity? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
Anybody to explain it please. Right, please?

What sort of answer are you looking for? If you want a real detailed one you will have to study this:

General relativity - Wikipedia

And even that is going to be over simplified.

There are millions and millions ordinary people in the world, is it fair to deprive them of a simple and correct answer of it?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are millions and millions ordinary people in the world, is it fair to deprive them of a simple and correct answer of it?

Regards

What makes you think that there is a simple and correct answer? The real world does not always work that way. All I can say is that mass tells space how to curve and the curve tells light which direction it will follow. You could ask some of our more advanced physicists here is you want more.

One thing about gravity is that it can be approached from several different directions. Some of them are more easily understood. They are also less "correct". For example Galilean gravity only deals with acceleration near the surface of the Earth. It is assumed a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. Newtonian gravity is a bit more complicated and will require calculus to fully use it, but it was accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back. The General Theory of relativity is even more difficult, but it makes GPS possible. One can demand simplicity, that does not mean that one is going to get it.

 

[paarsurrey]

What makes you think that there is a simple and correct answer? The real world does not always work that way. All I can say is that mass tells space how to curve and the curve tells light which direction it will follow. You could ask some of our more advanced physicists here is you want more.

One thing about gravity is that it can be approached from several different directions. Some of them are more easily understood. They are also less "correct". For example Galilean gravity only deals with acceleration near the surface of the Earth. It is assumed a constant acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. Newtonian gravity is a bit more complicated and will require calculusb to fully use it, but it was accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back. The General Theory of relativity is even more difficult, but it makes GPS possible. One can demand simplicity, that does not mean that one is going to get it.

" What makes you think that there is a simple and correct answer? "

I find nature out there so beautiful, and it is so simple, every human being enjoys its beauty.
Why can't those who complicate it, do it simple?
It is not fair and equitable!?.

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

" What makes you think that there is a simple and correct answer? "

I find nature out there so beautiful, and it is so simple, every human being enjoys its beauty.
Why can't those who complicate it, do it simple?
It is not fair and equitable!?.

Regards

But it is far from simple if one studies it. Take a microbiology course or two. Take a few geology courses. And try to take an advanced physics or chemistry course. Things just are not that simple.