http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html
He makes a strong case against the fine tuning of the universe, where he notes people change one parameter like gravity saying a few percent one way or the other and we don't exist, but if one parameter changes, likely is it for other parameters to change with it, compensating.
Originally posted by sonhouseThen why don't all planets have life on them?
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html
He makes a strong case against the fine tuning of the universe, where he notes people change one parameter like gravity saying a few percent one way or the other and we don't exist, but if one parameter changes, likely is it for other parameters to change with it, compensating.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat he is saying is pure speculation. He offers no proof.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html
He makes a strong case against the fine tuning of the universe, where he notes people change one parameter like gravity saying a few percent one way or the other and we don't exist, but if one parameter changes, likely is it for other parameters to change with it, compensating.
While there is much proof for the fine-tuned universe. It
is an accepted fact among scientist that do not have a
bias against God as the creator of the universe. A person
can make up all kind of possibilities. That is done all the
time in science fiction like "Stat Wars" but a real scientist
should not be making such claims without proof. This is
an example of "intellectual dishonesty" to the extreme.
Originally posted by RJHindsDid you ever meet Vishy/Dasa?
What he is saying is pure speculation. He offers no proof.
While there is much proof for the fine-tuned universe. It
is an accepted fact among scientist that do not have a
bias against God as the creator of the universe. A person
can make up all kind of possibilities. That is done all the
time in science fiction like "Stat Wars" but a real scientist ...[text shortened]... such claims without proof. This is
an example of "intellectual dishonesty" to the extreme.
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseWhile that may sell books, the "universe fine tuned for life" argument only appeals to the self-centered. Therein lies the biggest fallacy. If some of the parameters were sufficiently different, the universe as we know it wouldn't exist and human beings wouldn't exist. So what? There may still be a universe and life, just not as we know it. If they didn't hold the self-centered belief that the universe exists for themselves, they'd realize the fallacy. Of course, they are what they are. They cannot see beyond themselves.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/06/why-the-universe-wasnt-fine-tuned-for-life.html
He makes a strong case against the fine tuning of the universe, where he notes people change one parameter like gravity saying a few percent one way or the other and we don't exist, but if one parameter changes, likely is it for other parameters to change with it, compensating.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo for you it's a matter of unsubstantiated faith.
I don't have any more proof that what the scientist have already
discovered. So it would not help the likes of you to believe it
anyway.
I don't understand why theists, mostly fundies, hate the idea of the multiverse.
If your god is infinite, then why can't it rule over an infinite universe?
What's the problem here?
Just the idea you think only atheists believe it?
If atheists like it, fundies hate it no matter what the truth?