Summations Only

C'mon, Dr. Adequate! You are ignoring the important issue. Defend Stenger's statement that the gravitational field does not have to be real.

Which is why the next debate has to be on Penrose's calculations and his book on Cycle Theory.

I haven't presented the model yet but I have presented the an element of it when discussing fine-tuning. You made no attempt to wrestle with the evidence in a scientific manner. Let's face it, you are one of the brighter minds here. If you are unwilling to wrestle with the evidence, what hope is there of having an intelligent debate? On the other hand, if you did engage with the evidence it may encourage others to consider the evidence also. I haven't given you any reason yet. But surely you understand that evidence builds on itself. Until you can begin to understand the evidence related to the low entropy big bang and the fine-tuned universe that resulted from it, you will not grasp the full weight of the later evidence. I'm not sure I have used the term "intelligent design." I used to use it but it confused people. It made people think I was associated with the political ambitions of the ID movement that has (or had) a goal to get ID taught in public schools. That is not a goal of mine. The issue is: Is it possible for science to detect the effects of a Creator God?When it comes to the fine-tuned universe, most physicists - even the atheists - admit fine-tuning has the appearance of design and purpose. How much fine-tuning would it take for you to say "Wow, I did not expect to see this...Maybe there is something to this fine-tuning argument?"On the other hand, perhaps you will look at the evidence closely and say "That's not so unexpected. Fine-tuning is easily explained by chance. There's no support here for a Creator God hypothesis."But you cannot come to either position without looking at the data scientifically. Once you look at the data around one issue like the big bang or fine-tuned universe, then you can begin to look at other issues. Then you can begin to look at the total explanatory power of the entire model and look at the model's predictive success.How many people here have read The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics by Roger Penrose? This is the book that shows Penrose's calculation of the chances of a low entropy big bang. How many people have read Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe by Martin Rees? It's one of the better books on fine-tuning. How many have read The Goldilocks Enigma:Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies?You seem to think the RTB Creation Model is something contrary to science. It isn't. It is a better explanation for the data.There is a dearth of knowledge here about the data when it comes to the low entropy big bang and the fine-tuned universe. People assume I'm dishonest or making things up.We all need to get out of our specialties sometimes. I invite you to do some reading on the low entropy big bang and the fine-tuned universe. I think you will enjoy it. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

No, you didn't. Your "defense" consisted only in questioning gravitational attraction, not the gravitational field. Like many statements in Stenger's book, the statement is indefensible.What do you think Lawrence Krauss would say of Stenger's statement? Do you remember our Zero Net Energy debate? According to Krauss, the negative energy of the gravitational field is equal to all of the positive energy and matter in the universe. You cannot have it both ways.

My views on gravitation are in line with the standard textbooks. Are there errors in my thinking? Possibly but I'm not denying the existence of the gravitational field. That's Stenger.

I have to be honest and say I have not read it yet. I have heard the youtube video of Penrose describing his calculation. I've read Paul Davies talking about his calculation. It was Victor Stenger who wrote that it was this Penrose book that gave the calculation. I plan to get the book before I start the Penrose debate. Where do you see a false claim in that message? I was stating my opinion. Are you saying if I state my opinion and you believe my opinion is wrong, then you conclude I'm lying or making a false claim? No, that is not how it works. I'm pointing out that your statement is your opinion and not fact. In addition, I believe your opinion is demonstrably false. But that does not mean I am in the position to demonstrate it at this point. But that is my honest opinion. I'm not making things up and I'm not lying. These ad hom attacks are really not working for you. Maybe you should try another approach.

For years now theists have thought they have the final, killer scientific argument for the existence of God. They have claimed that the physical parameters of the universe are delicately balanced — fine-tuned — so that any infinitesimal changes would make life as we know it impossible. Even atheist physicists find this so-called anthropic principle difficult to explain naturally, and many think they need to invoke multiple universes to do so. — Victor Stenger, Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p. 37In the passage above, Stenger freely admits the power of the fine-tuning argument, that is, if fine-tuning were real it would be a problem for atheists. Stenger allows that atheists have to resorted to multiple universes argument to combat fine-tuning. This Stenger will not do. Stenger calls the multiverse is an untested hypothesis and refuses to rely on it himself. But Stenger seems to want to hold the multiverse in reserve just in case the arguments presented in his book fail. And the arguments in his book fail completely. Setting aside the obvious hyperbole ("current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe") in the passage below, Stenger makes promises he cannot keep:Cosmologists have proposed a very simple solution to the fine-tuning problem. They current models strongly suggest that ours is not the only universe but part of a multiverse containing an unlimited number of individual universes extending an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that’s the case, we just happen to live in than universe which is suited for our kind of life. The universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to the universe.
Now, theists and many nonbelieving scientists object to this solution as being nonscientific because we have no way of observing a universe outside our own, which we will see is disputable. In fact, a multiverse is more scientific and parsimonious than hypothesizing an unobservable creating spirit and a single universe. I would argue that the multiverse is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, since it agrees with our best knowledge
Now I mention this only for completeness. Although I believe it is adequate to refute fine-tuning, it remains an untested hypothesis. My case will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics nor on the existence of multiple universes. I will show fine-tuning is a fallacy based on our knowledge of this universe alone. Stenger, Fallacy, pp. 23-24The obvious hyperbole ("current models strongly suggest ours in not the only universe") shows Stenger would like to use any tool possible to defeat theism, but he has to admit that the multiverse is not really science. He claims he "will not rely on speculations beyond well-established physics" and yet he claims the gravitational field may not be real or that we can make it whatever we want it to be.Recall these classic Stenger quotes:"The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning."In most physics textbooks you will read that gravity is the weakest of all forces, many orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism... We see this is wrong. Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force." P. 151"In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." P. 152It is clear that Stenger is well off the beaten path when it comes to physics. He even admits that his views differ from physics textbooks. It is my view that a commitment to atheism leads people away from the correct scientific view. We have seen it with Stenger. I believe I can show in the case of Roger Penrose also.

Not true. I did read the replies and asked Dr. Adequate to defend Stenger's ridiculous statement that the gravitational field is fictional. He was unable to do so and debate descended to "I already did that." "No you didn't." "Yes, I did."I didn't have time for such nonsense at the time, but I have some time as I listen to the NCAA Finals tonight.If you think gravity is fictional, go jump off a three story building and test your theory. Gravity is never fictional. There are different ways of looking at gravity. Unfortunately for Stenger, he screws them all up.There are two (or arguably three) scientific views of gravity.In Newtonian physics, gravity is calculated by attraction. Newtonian physics works in most situations. NASA used Newtonian physics to calculate travel to the moon. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a constant. It works very well on the surface of earth and between the earth and moon.Here's a good definition from Wise Geek: "Newton's first law states that the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, or mathematically: F=G(m1m2/d2), where G is a constant."On a cosmological level, General Relativity is more precise than Newtonian physics. On a cosmological level, the concept of attraction is not used. But on the surface of the planet, the concept of attraction is very helpful.In General Relativity, in place of attraction physicists talk of the "gravitational field." This refers to the extent space is warped by the presence of planetary bodies. The problem for Stenger is that he writes: "The moon is probably real. But the gravitational field does not have to be." P. 53, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.This statement is absolutely indefensible. Ask Cave Diver.The third view of gravity is not well-established, but it is the view from quantum field theory. It theorizes the attraction (or gravitational field) is mediated by a massless particle known as a graviton. This view has some problems, but perhaps some day the graviton will be discovered.Stenger's comments violate all three scientific views of gravitation. He is completely outside the lines. No physicist in his right mind will say gravitation is fictional or "the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned."Any attempt to defend Stenger will only make you look silly. Don't even try.

No. See message 300 above. Yes, Stenger's book does attempt to rebut fine-tuning without resorting to the multiverse. Still, Stenger's comments in favor of the multiverse show that he wants to keep the multiverse in reserve even though he agrees it is "an untested hypothesis." This just shows Stenger is writing as an atheist and not as a scientist. A scientist will take a position and stick with it. Stenger was not able to do that.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 2nd quote box.

There are scientific papers written on these topics. Typically, the degree of fine-tuning is expressed as a percentage of the range of values possible for each parameter. I accept that you do not have this information readily available to you, but I would think it would be possible for you to consider the issue based on percentages and the number of parameters - which is exactly what I proposed you do. It is unanswerable with the evidence available to you. Certainly, rare outcomes happen randomly in nature all the time but they do not typically build on one another. If more evidence were available to you, would you attempt a scientific assessment? What would it take for you to conclude that fine-tuning could not be a result of random chance?

Not at all. I'm asking you to follow the reasoning of the physicists, many of them atheists, who have written about these parameters. It is important to understand the data and the logic in the papers. Once you understand the argument, you can back up and challenge the argument with Stenger's reasoning or any other challenges you care to muster.Your argument seems to be that you don't want to know the evidence because once you know the evidence you are in a rabbit hole of Wonderland and you cannot get out. This is just another way of saying "Don't confuse me with facts."

You have not interacted with any of the arguments I put forward showing Stenger is way out of bounds regarding the gravitational field. Did you even read any of the links I provided?I'm not misinterpreting scientists (if Stenger even qualifies anymore). Stenger himself admitted that his views conflicted with physics textbooks. I'm simply pointing out some of the areas where he is off the beaten path.Can you imagine Einstein agreeing that the gravitational field may not be real or can be anything we want it to be? No, you cannot. It's ridiculous in the extreme.You cannot defend the kind of nonsense Stenger puts out and expect to be taken seriously.

Yes, I can but I really think some context would be helpful to you first. I recommend you read two books: Just Six Numbers by Sir Martin Rees and The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? by Paul Davies. Neither of the authors are religious.Martin Rees is a winner of the Gruber Prize in Cosmology and the Crafoord Prize. He is also former president of the Royal Society. Paul Davies is a winner of Kelvin Medal and the Faraday Prize.These are popular books that are probably available at your local library. The physics in them are standard physics, not the kind of hooey you get from Victor Stenger.

Yes, and I thought I addressed those issues by saying there are science papers on each of the parameters in question. Each parameter has to be treated differently. I cannot deal with all of them here. I don't really think that is what you are expecting me to do, is it?In an effort to move the discussion forward, assume for a moment that the science papers I mention are able to answer your questions to your satisfaction. If nothing else, think of this as a thought experiment. Let's say the scientists who examined each of these parameters has come to a reasonably accurate picture of the range of values and a probability distribution. (In the few I have looked at closely, the probability is uniform just like the roll of a dice.) Knowing that individual rare occurrences happen in nature, but combinations of rare occurrences are rare - what level of fine-tuning would you say can reasonably be chalked up to random natural events (null hypothesis)? And what level of fine-tuning would you say is beyond random chance and chaotic natural processes (alternate hypothesis)?Yes, I know I'm asking the same question. You are asking good questions. Actually, it is possible to model many types of universes with different shapes and compositions of matter. The vast majority of model universes end up as black holes, very high entropy. Recently, computer simulations have been working on dark energy. Interesting reads here and here.I will number your next questions so I can answer them specifically. 1. First, you look at what life requires: stellar evolution, rocky planet correct distance from its star, carbon, water, sunlight, atmospheric oxygen mixture, etc. Then we look at what parameters will allow these to exist in our universe.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.BTW, you might be interested in the entire field of astrobiology. It is a fascinating scientific field, in part because we don't have any life forms from other planets to study yet. But the astrobiologists think about possible life forms and they look for planets on which life might possibly form. I know Penn State and Univ of Washington have active astrobiology departments. Unfortunately, the universe as a whole is not very conducive to life. It seems the placement of our planet in the galaxy is very fortuitous. A number of planets have been discovered that researchers initially thought might have life on them, but in every case they discovered something about the planet which made it unsuitable for life. Of course, there are billions more star systems to search but planets within the goldilocks zone are rare and have always come up empty. But stay tuned, I'm certain more discoveries are just around the corner.

Have you done any reading at all on the topic of the fine-tuned universe?