Summations Only

As it turns out, Dr. Ross has assembled the largest list of scientific papers on fine-tuning I have seen. He has them listed by scale - universe, galaxy clusters, galaxies, planetary systems, ecosystems etc. He did not author these papers. They were mostly authored by atheists. He has only assembled them. He did this because scientists are not aware of scientific work done in other fields. Actually, we can rule it out if we want to stick to science. I will repeat. The multiverse is a common topic but cannot be considered science in the normal sense because the hypothesis cannot be falsified. See Paul Davies. You do not have to know the composition of the entire deck. We know for example what would happen if the strength of gravity was off by just a little. We know what would happen if the mass of the electron was off by just a little. Some have tried to argue that if one parameter was off a little, the universe could survive if another number was also adjusted just a little. But those types of calculations always leave something out. The physics is so intertwined that it is never just one ratio that is important. Let's say the strength of gravity is a little stronger than it is now, well, that creates huge problems. Well maybe we could fix that problem by changing the value of the electromagnetic force. But the electromagnetic force also has other important ratios. Every time you change one parameter, you fix one problem and create one or two or three more. The universe is extremely fine-tuned because no set of values, other than the one we have, will work. Change any one of the important parameters and you will never get the universe back in balance. Your point is highly unlikely. Life requires organic chemistry. Carbon is the only molecule known to have the unique properties necessary to sustain life. Some have proposed that silicon-based life may be possible but the astrobiologists at NASA disagree. Please don't confuse Jehovah's Witnesses with scientists who believe in Jesus Christ. Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Many of your quotations don't actually say that. I presume you have also made up whether they're atheists or not, as is your wont. Top of your list is Sir James Jeans, what makes you think he was an atheist? So, they're not things he wrote. I thought so. Perhaps you could make less stuff up in future. Either that, or the physicist knows more about physics than you do. I wouldn't dream of it.

If you think you are irritated, think of how I feel. If you are going to equate this new model, the RTB Creation Model, with phlogiston theory or the geocentric model, why bother to interact with me at all? Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. You are not showing you are prepared to think scientifically about the evidence I'm presenting. That is not at all true. Go back and re-read the thread. Again, not true. I am not advocate for ID. There is a difference between the ID (capital letters) movement and the ability to detect intelligent design in nature. I appreciate some of the contributions made by people in ID but I disagree with their political focus. For me, it is all about the science. The issue of teaching in public schools does not interest me.I have consistently presented you with questions and opportunities to think scientifically about the question of whether science can say anything about a Creator God. I get comments but very little that is substantive. What I mainly see here is complaining, whining and name-calling. Come on, Blue Jay! I spelled it out for you in crayon. I wrote with increasing detail how one may approach the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis regarding fine-tuning. Did I get a single scientific response? If I did, I missed it.I came here hoping for a debate, but so far I'm very disappointed with the level of intellectual rigor. If you want to impress people with your intelligence, step up your game.

This is not an answer to what I wrote. The idea that there is only one also cannot be falsified. Therefore, if cannot be considered science. Therefore, no scientific argument can be based on that assumption. Therefore, the fine-tuning argument is not science. You have failed to understand the thing that you're trying to reply to. The question is not what would happen if the strength of gravity was different, but whether our universe was, so to speak, drawn from a deck of universes containing universes in which it is different. You have no reason for thinking that it was. You do not know the composition of the deck. Just because you can imagine a universe doesn't mean that it could have existed rather than our own: to know that you'd need to know a great deal more about the mechanism by which universes come into existence than you do. You'll pardon me if I don't bow to your expertise in physics, but that's 'cos you don't have any. In our universe, all the life we know of (from a sample of one planet) does depend on carbon bonds. In another universe, life could be based on the squachination of frumium. I don't think anyone's in a position to say. I didn't. I identified stupid religious apologists as being stupid religious apologists.

quote:

---

I have attempted to think scientifically about certain aspects of the issue such as fine-tuning. I read widely. I have quoted Roger Penrose, Paul Davies and others on the topic. My question is this: "Is there really any appetite here for scientific consideration of these issues? Or, are people here just to attempt to advance their own agenda?

---

Science isn't a matter of quoting authorities. Still less is it a matter of misrepresenting authorities.In the case of Penrose and natural causes for the universe, to get to your interpretation of the quote you abused, you had to assume that he was using the word "chance" in an uncommon sense and ignore his argument (which only worked if he was using "chance" in the more normal sense of the word). I don't think that putting a lie in Penrose's mouth is a very scientific argument, nor one that should be rationally convincing.So I really think that your question is better directed at yourself. You seem very much more interested in advancing your agenda and not at all interested in the science. Not only for the reasons above, but also because you have yet to actually do anything to back up your claim that Ross has produced a good scientific model.

quote:

---

For my part, I hope it is clear that I want to learn from others and that I want my thinking challenged and sharpened.

---

It certainly isn't clear. Consider the case of the Eugenie Scott quotes. You tried to defend Hugh Ross's claims - based on phrases presented out of context - by repeating Hugh Ross's quotes of phrases taken out of context. And you hadn't even seen the source of the quotes. Simply trusting Hugh Ross - when the presentation of the quotes alone was grounds for suspicion - let alone the fact that we already know that Ross is less than honest - is at best a naive attempt to brush aside a challenge - it certainly isn't what I'd expect of someone who wants to find the truth.

quote:

---

I'm not picking that vibe up from the commenters here so far. I'm not sensing any intellectual integrity or willingness to confront evidence that may be uncomfortable.

---

Seems to me that that means that people are actually challenging your thinking. For instance there seems to be more appetite on the part of several people here to see you present Hugh Ross's model and some of the things it allegedly explains and predicts than there is on your part to actually present it.

What do the blue cards represent? What are the blue cards of this world? Why is it objectively special?

quote:

---

"How seriously can we take this explanation for the friendliness of nature? Not very, I think. For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification.

​

Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

---

Paul DaviesFirstly, if you're agreeing with Paul Davies, you've thrown out your baby with the bath water. He wants to put the many worlds hypothesis on the level of the unseen Creator hypothesis, implying that neither are testable science and both require a "leap of faith".Mr. designtheorist, you now find yourself disagreeing with Ross and Dawkins on whether or not a creator God is a scientific hypothesis. (I agree with them that god hypotheses can be scientific. At least some god hypotheses are testable. The standard YEC model, for example, is both testable, falsifiable, and has long been effectively falsified by a number of lines of evidence).It should have occurred to you that if you can't test how many universes there are, then you've thrown out the standard creationist fine tuning argument, and defined it as being outside science.I don't think either the one world hypothesis or the many worlds hypothesis should be considered outside science. We can conceive of falsifications for both, and falsification is always hypothetical. If future science can positively establish one or the other then the opposite is falsified. Presently, they aren't practically falsifiable, but that applies to many scientific hypotheses of the past when they were first made, and of the present.Secondly, let's look at where (non-atheist) Paul Davies cheats in favour of a supernatural creator:

quote:

---

Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator.

---

He sees hypotheses about other worlds when there is an observed example of one world as equivalent to hypotheses about a supernatural being making things when we have zero established examples of the latter. Wow! That's like seeing speculation on the existence of intelligent alien biological beings travelling through space (based on the one example of ourselves) as the equivalent of speculation on the existence of werewolves, when we have zero established examples of individuals of one species that can transform instantaneously into another.Edited by bluegenes, : Gave Paul Davies credit for his nonsense as I'd forgotten to do so.Edited by bluegenes, : tpyoEdited by bluegenes, : wrong word

If you check out the Wikipedia article on the Multiverse in the section under Criticism you'll see several ways described in which the multiverse might be detected, and it even addresses the Paul Davies quote.Will your discussion of the scientific merits of the RTB hypothesis ever include a description of it along with a presentation of its scientific support? You know, like evidence or something? Because I think the lack of scientific discussion you complain about derives from the fact that you haven't really introduced anything scientific to discuss. For instance, in Message 190 you say: But what evidence would that be? All you do is keep quoting scientists, which isn't evidence and for the most part these scientists don't seem to agree with you that the appearance of design constitutes evidence of design.So is there some telltale evidence hidden in the CBR? Does pi have a message for us after the gazillionth decimal place? Or is your only "evidence" that if the universe were different we wouldn't be here.--Percy

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

The RTB Creation Model starts with assuming that the Bible is error free. There ain't nothing scientific about that. In fact, its even less scientific than the phlogiston theory or the geocentric model. You should start by presenting the evidence for your position. Have I missed it?

It is possible to agree with Paul Davies on one subject and disagree on another. I think it would be interesting to have Paul Davies as part of this discussion because I think he could consider the issues raised by Ross scientifically. But he obviously has not considered them at the time of this writing. Not true. You have made a leap of logic that is completely unwarranted. You don't understand falsifiability. A theory is considered falsifiable when it is possible to make observations or conduct experiments that can falsify it. Science is always tentative because new information is always possible so one theory is not falsified just because another theory gains ascendancy. What makes you think Paul Davies is a non-atheist? It is fine to write about unseen universes, if you are writing science fiction. But science deals with the observable. If you can't observe it, probe it, test it, weigh it, perturb it, spin it, explore it or sample it, then it probably is not science. We have zero examples of unseen universes.But we do have atheists (Dawkins, for example) who say science can answer the question of God's existence. We have discussed ways in which the effects of a Creator God can be detected. We have to think scientifically, using the standards tools of science such as the null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis. There is lots of evidence to be put forward if people can convince me a real debate can happen here.I wanted an argument and feel I've walked into the abuse room. On a few occasions, it rises to pure contradiction.

If you've got some evidence, post it. So far you've made some arguments by quoting a scientist or two, but you've posted no real evidence.

I did not misrepresent Penrose. He was clearly speaking of chance in the normal sense of naturalistic random events. As I mentioned before, the combination of his atheism and his calculations showing the Big Bang could not have a naturalistic cause as an initial event, Penrose has returned to the debunked Cycle Theory in his latest book. While the book won some awards initially, several papers have been written about it showing problems and errors. I don't think we need to cover that ground again. Hogwash. You have a bad habit of assuming anyone you disagree with is dishonest. Such a broad brush paints ugly pictures. Ross's paraphrase is a legitimate understanding of Eugenie's words. She is free to clarify her thoughts if she wants to, but I have not seen any evidence that she has. As I said before, I would like to see some evidence the commenters here are mentally prepared to weigh evidence. The evidence is sadly lacking. All I get it contradiction and abuse - just like the Monty Python skit I linked. If you want a debate, then raise your game. Stop calling people dishonest and deal with evidence. Think about the evidence using scientific methods.

Well obviously we'll never be able to live up to your intellectual standards, but why not have go anyway?God knows, we can hardly disappoint you any more than we already have and evidence isn't harmed by being looked at in awe by those unable to understand it.Otherwise, do us all a favour and crawl back up your own backside, you seem to enjoy it up there.

Removed.Edited by NoNukes, : No need to dogpile. Tangle expressed this stuff already.