09 Jan 09
3 edits
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.
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 value other than what it is? -if there is no such premise, then, logically, no "fine-tuning" necessary!
09 Jan 09
1 edit
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.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8566--gammaray-burst-study-may-rule-out-cosmological-constant.html
Until we know more about what dark energy is and exactly how it works, the cosmological constant is just a rough way to get a flat universe.
09 Jan 09
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]
It seems to me that you see it again and again because there is a lack of understanding -both scientifically and spiritually.
And this is quite strange because the scientific facts and evidence are opening new horizons at every level; in addition, the esoteric systems do make clear that there is not "Because"; but in vain😵
09 Jan 09
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]
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasHmmm epi my friend,
Monism is compatible with naturalism.
I have the feeling that filthy Bosse de Nage, this obnoxius honeytongued brother of mine, will come with something out of his brand new magic hat;
for it seems to me that Spinoza denies the contrast between God and the world;
😵
09 Jan 09
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.
Scientists don't have to "fall in line" with anything other than providing concrete scientific evidence for their claims.
If they claim something supernatural then they have to provide specific falsifiable predictions and explain how their findings could be verified.
09 Jan 09
3 edits
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?
...…
The laws of physics (both those that are known and those that are yet to be discovered -research is still ongoing).
……What ESTABLISHED the cosmological constant?..… (my emphasis)
The word “ESTABLISHED” implies something X setting it permanently the way it is.
Given the fact that there is no premise/evidence for the hypothesis that there exists such a something X, there is no premise/evidence for the hypothesis that the physical constant was “ESTABLISHED”.
Therefore, instead, the most credible hypothesis is that it simply couldn’t have been any other value thus no need for something to “establish“ it.
In other words, it would be like asking what “ESTABLISHED” a mathematical constant such as PI -well, nothing “ESTABLISHED” the mathematical constant PI, it simply couldn’t be any other value -and the same for the physical constant.
09 Jan 09
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]
..
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.
10 Jan 09
10 edits
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.
Probably very close many thousands of times , which is what makes you wonder at the miracle of it. .…
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise and again and again you make this same logical error because your "logic" (misnomer) is horrendously flawed and twisted:
I could deal out a million randomly shuffled cards and then calculate the odds of dealing out that particular sequence of cards that I did and find this probability is vanishingly small and then shout out “it’s a miracle!!!” 😛
-but it obviously it is no miracle because I would inevitably deal out a highly improbable sequence of cards and I still dealt out the cards that I did.
The same applies to all other specific outcomes in reality that come from a long chain of chance events -such as us existing here in the present day and life existing etc. -each one of these specific outcomes in reality is highly unlikely to have occurred exactly the way it did but non of them are “miracles” because, mathematically, ALL possible specific outcomes in reality that could have occurred are highly unlikely to occur exactly so thus it is inevitable that a highly improbable outcome will occur! -so, sorry, no miracle.
10 Jan 09
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.
10 Jan 09
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 😵