Fine Tuning Of The Universe

Originally posted by Penguin
So you are saying that we assume things work the same throughout space and also throughout time? This is probably true but I also think it is justified.

If we are wrong in our assumptions and the laws and constants do change through time and/or space then I suspect that raises various other questions but it probably also remove the 'fine tuning' problem. ...[text shortened]... o arise in an area/period where the rules and constants are suitable for life.

--- Penguin.

I don't think it is as easy as you try to make it seem. There is the probability problem.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6411

Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't think it is as easy as you try to make it seem. There is the probability problem.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6411

No, I am saying that if the laws and constants change through time then that removes the probability problem.

You are saying that we are making an error in assuming conformity of laws and constants. But if we don't assume conformity of these, and they can actually change through a range of value combinations, then we are obviously living in a period where they happen to be in a value combination that supports life. So we don't have to be so amazed that they are so finely tuned.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
No, I am saying that if the laws and constants change through time then that [b]removes the probability problem.

You are saying that we are making an error in assuming conformity of laws and constants. But if we don't assume conformity of these, and they can actually change through a range of value combinations, then we are obviously living in a perio ...[text shortened]... supports life. So we don't have to be so amazed that they are so finely tuned.

--- Penguin.[/b]

You don't adequately understand the seriousness of all the problems, but this
should be expected of a Pseudo-intellectual. Start with the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

Originally posted by RJHinds
According to Reijer Hooykaas (1963), Lyell's uniformitarianism is a family of four related propositions, not a single idea:
Uniformity of law – the laws of nature are constant across time and space.
Uniformity of methodology – the appropriate hypotheses for explaining the geological past are those with analogy today.
Uniformity of kind – past and prese then you go to the out crop of rock."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

“...Uniformity of law – the laws of nature are constant across time and space. ...”

I will take it here that “ laws of nature” is really about the laws of physics.
Then, the above proportion is true by definition of “laws”: a “law” ( of physics ) means a rule that the physical world obeys in all space and time with the only allowed possible exception being in singularities.
Therefore, any rule that can be false somewhere (except in singularities) at some time is not a law ( of physics ) by definition.
So “ the laws of nature are constant across time and space” is basically a tautology and not an 'assumption' -unless “ laws of nature” doesn't mean “laws of physics” here? -there needs to be better clarity here. All four of those proportions are a bit vague in there expression.

As for the other three proportions; geologists ( and I and most scientists ) don't necessarily assume them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

“...Unlike Lyell, modern geologists do not apply uniformitarianism in the same way. They QUESTION if rates of processes WERE uniform through time and only those values measured during the history of geology are to be accepted. ...” (my emphasis)

It is highly doubtful any scientists assumes all three of those assumptions ( the first one was not an 'assumption' but a tautology -at least if “ laws of nature” = “laws of physics” ) at least not without an awful lot of question and reservations.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't adequately understand the seriousness of all the problems, but this
should be expected of a Pseudo-intellectual. Start with the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

I have read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

so what? How does any of that contradict what Penguin just said in his last post?

“...Pseudo-intellectual....”

why insult him? There was no call for that. You haven’t even clearly given a counterargument against his argument so it would appear that you are being the stupid one here.

Originally posted by humy
I have read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

so what? How does any of that contradict what Penguin just said in his last post?

“...Pseudo-intellectual....”

why insult him? There was no call for that. You haven’t even clearly given a counterargument against his argument so it would appear that you are being the stupid one here.

I sometimes get annoyed by pseudo-intellectuals like yourself. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I sometimes get annoyed by pseudo-intellectuals like yourself. 😏

Pot & Kettle?

And here we have the dirtiest, blackest, worthless pot and a shiney kettle!

😏

Originally posted by black beetle
And to top it off:

One of the (many) problems as regards the way our Christian friends and other theists conceive G-d, is the fact that they attribute existence to a non epistemic object that has a quality (say A), which cannot be found in any of the existing epistemic objects we perceive.

When it seems to them that something has a quality A, then ...[text shortened]... on false;


So, why should we pray for the success of atheism since theism does not hold?
😵

It was not until i read that .... thanks again bb.
"we pray for the success of atheism". to whom are we praying? lol. I wonder if sonhouse even realized how lulzish that sentence was

Originally posted by RJHinds
I sometimes get annoyed by pseudo-intellectuals like yourself. 😏

So nothing in that cherry told you it was going to be a cherry tree😵

Originally posted by karoly aczel
It was not until i read that .... thanks again bb.
"we pray for the success of atheism". to whom are we praying? lol. I wonder if sonhouse even realized how lulzish that sentence was

Our sonhouse has always a good sense of humour😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't adequately understand the seriousness of all the problems, but this
should be expected of a Pseudo-intellectual. Start with the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

Like Humy, I fail to see how that particular statistical tool has any bearing whatsoever on my point.

Maybe you could, with your superhuman intellectual powers, explain its significance to us mere pseudo-intellectuals?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Like Humy, I fail to see how that particular statistical tool has any bearing whatsoever on my point.

Maybe you could, with your superhuman intellectual powers, explain its significance to us mere pseudo-intellectuals?

--- Penguin.

The basic idea is that at different times in history there is no real way to make
sure we know what the constant values must be because it is impossible for us
to determine the expected values without making assumptions which in turn
makes them suspect to error. For example, if the heavens and earth were
really created by God then what is the range of expected values of the constants
during various stages of the creation process. We can not be sure and must make
assumptions to even try to do any calculations. And even if God did not create
anything, as evolutionist claim, assumptions still have to be made.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The basic idea is that at different times in history there is no real way to make
sure we know what the constant values must be because it is impossible for us
to determine the expected values without making assumptions which in turn
makes them suspect to error. For eaxample, if the heavens and earth were really created by God then what is the range of ...[text shortened]... even if God did not create
anything, as evolutionist claim, assumptions still have to be made.

No, “assumptions” the way you pose it, the scientists make not; they follow procedures and methods consisting in systematic observation, measurements and experiments, formulating, testing and modification of falsifiable hypotheses and theories😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No, “assumptions” the way you pose it, the scientists make not; they follow procedures and methods consisting in systematic observation, measurements and experiments, formulating, testing and modification of falsifiable hypotheses and theories😵

You apparently have been hoodwinked by some of the scientific community into
believing the propaganda that everything they do is legit.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You apparently have been hoodwinked by some of the scientific community into
believing the propaganda that everything they do is legit.

You apparently have been hoodwinked by some of the religious community into
believing the propaganda that everything they do is legit.



See what happens when you have no objective way of settling disputes or arguing
a point.

Everything turns into a mindless mud slinging match.

Logic reason and evidence are the way we test ideas against reality to see which
ones match up best.
Without it there IS no way of testing one idea to see if it is better than another.


You simply assert your beliefs as true regardless of evidence and reason.
This is why all you get is insulted and ridiculed.
Because you can't have a reasoned and rational debate with someone who is
unreasonable and irrational.


What you claim here is objectively and manifestly wrong.
Simply stating it over and over again will not make it any less wrong.

Your insults and inferences have no sting and carry no weight because nobody here
thinks your opinion is worth anything.
The only way to change this is to argue based on logic and reason and stick to the evidence.

So up to you, continue to be a laughing stock, or engage in reasoned debates...

The choice is yours.