Summations Only

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.

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

Why in the heck would we care what Ross says about Eugenie's words? When we read them ourselves we do not obtain the meaning Ross gives them.Why don't you instead show using your own reasoning how Eugenie's words might have the meaning Ross attributes to them. Surely you are capable of doing more than parotting Ross.Your continued defense of Ross's paraphrase is simply confirming your reputation for misquoting scientists, with said misquotes always somehow being in support of your pet theses. A problem easily fixed by carrying out the exercise I describe above.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thanks for providing together in a compact place your Stenger quotes and your arguments. Let's look at your analysis.First this:

quote:

---

The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be.

---

With fuller context, we can now see the point that Stenger is making, and that the point is not the inanity you attempt to make of it. Stenger discusses here a philosophic view of the nature of reality, but getting away from the philosopy, it is a fact that the gravitational field is a fictitious entity.Next: Hmm. An accurate statement of fact is based on the general theory of relativity. Any knowledgeable person would recognize that to be the case. Gravity is indeed a fictitious force in a manner highly analogous to the manner in which the centrifugal force generated by circular motion is fictious. What exactly could be your point here? I'd want to see a bit more context here. But I cannot appreciate Stenger's argument without a bit more. What I do see does suggest an error or Stenger's part, but I also know that you picked this quote, and presented it sans context for that purpose. Well, regardless of what you can find in some textbooks (which I must note is yet another blanket plea on your part that we accept a position based solely on the fact that it is accepted science), you haven't made much of an argument here. What we can critique here is your understanding of physics compared to Stenger's. Of the three examples you posted here, two agree with modern standard physics (well, modern physics dating from 1920) and the jury is out on the third example absent some context.I'm prepared to look at the third example again. But so far, your reasoning for dismissing Stenger is not looking so good.

Yes. I want to see your attempt to do exactly that. It might be a bit less funny than watching you laugh at your betters.One more example to add to the designtheorist does not understand physics well enough to debate cosmology list. Of course heading the list is the 40 posts it took in the 'Does the universe have total net energy of zero' thread to convince you to accept basic algebra.I also cite this admission from that thread. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think designtheorist is claiming to have shown us some evidence already.

Dr. Adequate defended that proposition in message 236. You've already made one response to that message without addressing his defense of the fact that gravity is a fictitious force.

No. I am only making life bearing universes rare among all possible universes. So rare in fact that you have no business getting one in a random pick of a single card.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What evidence have you presented for the idea that fine tuning implies design? So your intention is to call us stupid and stubborn until we agree with you? Not a good plan.What should we make of your own denials about the nature of gravity under the theory of general relativity?

This is what makes the difference between what you want to model and the one universe model. We would not expect a winner at if there were a single participant.

Dr. Adequate has cited several such textbooks and wikipedia.The gravitational field is defined to be the gravitational force felt by a test object at particular points in space due to a gravitational mass. Since there is no force, but rather a disturbance in space-time due to the presence of a mass, then there is no gravitational field.The above is standard, Einstein based physics. I'm sure that such physics is not taught in every physics textbook, but Stenger and people who study physics beyond the undergraduate level will find it in their text books. It turns out that you can do exactly that. Kraus calculation uses Newtonian physics. You can speak in both Newtonian terms and in the language of general relativity. Which one is most technically correct?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, it assumes that there is only one in existence. In other words, our assumption is that before the big bang, many were possible. But we've had only one attempt and now there is only one. The other universes are now impossible according to the possibility we are exploring.What you are essentially arguing is that if we pick from a bag of 1,000,000 red marbles and one blue marble, we should not be the least bit surprised if we get a blue marble on only one pick. I'm suggesting otherwise.

In his book The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, Stenger attempts refute the idea that the universe is fine tuned at all. FWIW, I'm not personally convinced that this it is possible to make this case on Stenger's terms. I believe instead that some kind of pre-selection or multi-universe argument is a better response.In short, specific constant values are required not just to produce life, but to get the universe through stages of the BBT. It seems likely (to me) that once those hoops are jumped through, the constant issue is settled. I would need to know natural processes cannot produce fine tuning, there is no need to reach for the multi-verse explanation until we get to the point of knowing a lot more detail than we know now. Fine-tuning = design is really no different than the arguments for detecting designed life vs evolved life.You can peek into Stenger's book here:The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us - Victor J. Stenger - Google BooksHere are some resources that might be helpful. The first link in Stenger's rebuttal to some of the criticisms that have been leveled at him:"Defending The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning"http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4359.pdfHere also is are a couple of articles leveling criticisms at Stenger. Some if, not all of them do not seem to be written by people who do not understand physics. I note in particular that they are head and shoulders above the level of BS designtheorist spouts here.Stenger's Fallacies" or "The Fine-Tuning Evidence is Convincinghttp://home.messiah.edu/...s/Fine-tuning/Stenger-fallacy.pdf"The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life"http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdfDespite the fact that I believe designtheorists attempts are well off the mark, I don't want to create false impression that there is no argument whatsoever to be made that the universe is fine tuned. In fact, on his web page, Stenger cites some leading physicists who disagree with him on his particular argument. But each of those scientists still avoid the conclusion that fine-tuning invariably means designed. I think those opinions are well worth a peek, so I link to them below.Page not found | Philosophy | University of Colorado Boulder | University of Colorado Boulder.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think we can make some attempts at assessing the probabilities. There are a number of papers available where people do just that. I don't think there is much doubt that the particular combinations of parameters that produce life are rare. But creationists also make the leap that a rare occurrence means design. I'm saying that a rare occurrence simply demands an explanation.But in any event, bluegenes seems to think he can make his point even while allowing me to make the probabilities as tiny as I wish. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Really. So you believe that there is nothing objectively special about rolling ten die once and having ten threes show up. This despite the fact that a three itself has no particular meaning.I am not addressing gambler's fever here because I don't see the relationship. I'm still pondering it. Well the assumption here is that values of some parameters used to describe universes are randomly selected, and that the overwhelming majority of the combinations of values do not result in life of any kind. Thus the true comparison should be between the few universes which can support life and those that cannot.Now those assumptions may not model reality very well, but that's what bluegenes and I are using. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.