09 Jan '09 11:28>
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYes.
Deus sive natura.
Originally posted by epiphinehas…For instance, in order to have a flat universe this Cosmological Constant must be "fine-tuned" to ...…
It is not so easy as you claim to discount the fine-tuning argument.
The Cosmological Constant poses a genuine problem ("the cosmological constant problem" to be exact) to cosmologists in search of a naturalistic solution to how our universe came to be as it is. For instance, in order to have a flat universe this Cosmological Constant must be "fine-t ies, in order to make the apparent fine-tuning of our universe inevitable and unsurprising.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWe're not even sure that the "Cosmological Constant" is actually constant.
For instance, in order to have a flat universe this Cosmological Constant must be "fine-tuned" to one part in 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. And the Cosmological Constant, it so happens, turned out to be exactly that.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHave a perfect 2009 for you and yours my dear AH🙂
[b]…For instance, in order to have a flat universe this Cosmological Constant must be "fine-tuned" to ...…
Again and again I see this same logically erroneous assertion being expressed:
What is the premise of your claim that it was "fine-tuned" to that precise value?
Is there any premise for the belief that it could have been any other ...[text shortened]... han what it is? -if there is no such premise, then, logically, no "fine-tuning" necessary![/b]
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHow would you account for the initial conditions being as they are? What established the cosmological constant?
[b]…For instance, in order to have a flat universe this Cosmological Constant must be "fine-tuned" to ...…
Again and again I see this same logically erroneous assertion being expressed:
What is the premise of your claim that it was "fine-tuned" to that precise value?
Is there any premise for the belief that it could have been any other ...[text shortened]... han what it is? -if there is no such premise, then, logically, no "fine-tuning" necessary![/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasHmmm epi my friend,
Monism is compatible with naturalism.
Originally posted by epiphinehasScience already has a scope - it can't prove the supernatural without a specific way to falsify the claims of the supernatural.
Don't most scientists, whether Christian or not, have to fall in line with the prevailing naturalism rampant in scientific circles? If I'm not mistaken, naturalism already precludes the existence of God.
Originally posted by epiphinehas…How would you account for the initial conditions being as they are?
How would you account for the initial conditions being as they are? What established the cosmological constant?
Originally posted by David CDo you know how close we came to not existing?=david---------
Actually, I consider the irony to be that anyone still feels "fine tuning" to be any sort of valid argument that requires investigation or hypotheses. Fine, the conditions in the universe led to, but will not end with, our species in this tiny corner of an immense galaxy in this ever-expanding universe. It did not, however, lead to talking lions or sentient ...[text shortened]... I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. "[/quote]
..
Originally posted by knightmeister…Do you know how close we came to not existing?=David---------
Do you know how close we came to not existing?=david---------
Probably very close many thousands of times , which is what makes you wonder at the miracle of it. There are so many ways that we might not be here and so many tiny adjustments that would cause the universe to fall into chaos. It didn't but to say that there was a one in one chance seems a silly thing to say when it's obvious that our lives are very unlikely.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagelol, funniest thing Ive heard in ages, giggled away almost as much as when Andrew Hamilton tried to palm off the peppered moth as viable and concrete proof of the process of evolution!
I don't think a single person who took the time to read that debate failed to conclude you were talking through your hat.
Not a bad practice, as it happens -- depending on the hat.
Originally posted by black beetleit is true beetle i am but a poor peasant, but there is nothing as potent as the truth, not even a samurai sword! awesome film!
OK🙂
I remember somethin outta of that ole movie, the "7 Samurai".
...the samurai was helping a peasant to practice his martial skills and therefore he was fighting against him with wooden sword. Then the peasant claimed that he was the winner. The samurai said:
-- "If we were fighting with real swords you would be dead"
Then the peasant drove loco and challenged him.
And then 😵