Summations Only

The above is a complete cop-out. According to you, your opponents don't understand the argument, and thus their comments in rebuttal are worthless. This is a debate site, and your obligation is to present your case.You are in no position to tell others to do any homework related to what is likely to be the case. Not given the absolutely abysmal grasp on probability demonstrated in your own posts on the matter. Not given your propensity to spouts nonsense nearly every time you post on the subject of physics. And yes, I can back those assessments up by pointing to your postsIf you have an argument, put it up. If the rebuttals are off base, then correct them. But don't insist that we carry your burden of persuasion. Bad for you maybe. So where are your substantive comments regarding some point made by Stenger? Amazing. So according to you, Stenger is bucking an established position and you want us to take evidence that he is wrong. Yet you made this comment: Apparently this kind of test only works when you want it to work.

Correction. Multiple universes is one of the possible explanations for why the universe is fine tuned that have been offered and not countered by designtheorist.

Designtheorist has answered about 1/4 of the replies he's gotten, with many of his responses generating more questions. And the thread has been open less than a week. Be patient.

I think this is an unjustified denial that there is a fine tuning issue. I think there is an issue. With the wrong combination of constants we might end up with a universe in which there is no fusion, or no supernovae, or in which the inflationary period of the Big Band does not exist, etc. I think many of the possibilities cannot be solved by life evolving to fit whatever conditions are produced. If indeed the constants could be changed in arbitrary ways, the result might be no universe or a universally life free universe.There is lots of stuff written on the topic, and a quick search on google scholar for fine tuning turns up as many scholarly journal papers on the topic as you might care to read. It is certainly a bogus claim that scientists simply 'don't know what to make' of fine tuning, as someone has claimed.

Perhaps my post was not clear.I did not argue with that conclusion.What I took issue with is that the problem could be solved even when considering a single universe by using the water shaped by hole argument. In my opinion that's incorrect because a single universe might well be utterly devoid of life, or it might last only a single micro second, etc.In other words, the problem is greater than simply life adopting to fill in a niche, because there might not even be a puddle if we have only a single universe.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you've read any of the articles Percy pointed you to, then you would understand that conservation of energy is an addressed concern. But you apparently cannot be bothered to learn too much about what you are critquing.I'm going to enumerate some of the incorrect statements in this post. I could easily double the size of the list by addressing your statements in finer granularity. Who said that the virtual particles must be photons? They could have been gluons, anti-particle pairs, perhaps even bosons. We have a verified theory that predicts that the phenomenon happens everywhere. But I suppose that in some sense, I don't "know" that the refigerator light stays off when the door is shut. Where did you get the idea that virtual particles only appear between metal plates in a vacuum. You made this up, and it turns out to be wrong. Percy has provided you some pointers to check out. Was the universe ever zero size? What theory says that? Your personal opinion? On advanced physics?Lol. As if dude. As if.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Because we don't live in a lifeless universe?The argument we want to counter is: "The universe has constants which are fine tuned for life".You cannot counter that argument with, "Randomly setting the constants might well produce a universe in which no life could exist. but a lifeless universe is just fine".You would need to further show some other things if you want to support the single universe proposition. E.g. significant probability of producing life, constants are not random/independently selected/etc.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You've given a perfect counter to a completely different fine tuning argument than the one I'm complaining about.If there is only a single universe, one can make the fine tuning argument that the probability of constants allowing any life at all is tiny. Simply pointing out that we exist and that our universe does indeed have life does not counter that argument at all.That's why we add additional arguments to the single universe arguments or why we make a multiverse arguments. Your post listing the problems with fine tuning = design listed some arguments that I might use.

You want experiments run outside of the universe? Yeah, that's reasonable.

I think you are confusing two types of scenarios. Imagine a 10,000,000 card deck with 3 jokers in it, where a full house with jokers represents a life bearing universe.It might well be true that every particular five card hand we deal is rare. But we have to get some hand, so we should not consider getting a particular hand (like getting me given humans) to be indicative of design. But getting a joker based full house is a rare hand in a quite different way. The probability of getting that hand in a single deal is impossibly low. It is low enough that we should be looking for an explanation for why it turned up.The error is in assuming that the explanation must be design and not assuming that an explanation of some type is necessary. And that's what I think was missing from your argument.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not because life is special, but because out of the spectrum of possible values for fundamental constants, most values do not result in a universe with life. No. There is nothing to explain when there are low odds, but millions of attempts to win, and where we don't care about the specific winner. But low odds, with only one attempt to win is a different matter and does need some 'splaining. I'd suggest that the rationale given on Dr. Adequate's post works pretty well.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

With one attempt to win the lottery, we should expect that no person would win.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You have a massive deck with a trillion red cards and two blue cards. You pick out 5 cards at random and get two blue cards. Do you suspect a problem?

In message 188 you dismiss the introduction of multiverses because it is an unfalsifiable, and thus non-scientific hypothesis. If this is sufficient, then et's just dismiss all of the non-falsifiable, non-scientific hypotheses from the discussion.

The blue cards represent combinations of parameters that produce a universe in which life might exist. They are not special. They are simply rare.