It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: luthier
It's quite obvious you don't grasp the fine tuning argument. Perhaps you should read about it first...l
Buy yes there are rebuttals like a multiverse.
And again. I wasn't arguing it just your and others lack of its understanding of the argument in teleogical, or the fact it has been observed in cosmology where God is not the following us of the argument.
Yes it is possible that its an observation through the anthropic principle.
The term “fine-tuning” is used to characterize sensitive dependences of facts or properties on the values of certain parameters. Technological devices are paradigmatic examples of fine-tuning. Whether they function as intended depends sensitively on parameters that describe the shape, arrangement, and material properties of their constituents, e.g., the constituents’ conductivity, elasticity and thermal expansion coefficient. Technological devices are the products of actual “fine-tuners”—engineers and manufacturers who designed and built them—but for fine-tuning in the broad sense of this article to obtain, sensitivity with respect to the values of certain parameters is sufficient.
plato.stanford.edu...
Philosophical debates in which “fine-tuning” appears are often about the universe’s fine-tuning for life: according to many physicists, the fact that the universe is able to support life depends delicately on various of its fundamental characteristics, notably on the form of the laws of nature, on the values of some constants of nature, and on aspects of the universe’s conditions in its very early stages.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
However if the isotopes, leptons etc were not what they are we wouldn't have a universe for life. Or one we can understand. We can do the math, change the parameters and see therelated are frameworks in the universe that can't be changed or else things like stars couldn't form.
originally posted by: luthier
Sure. But as I said fine tuning isn't creationists. They just use it as a teleological argument.
The observation of fine tuning is quite real and can be found in thousands of scientific papers. Just use Google scholar if you don't believe me. Just because creationists use it doesn't mean that fine tuning belongs to them. It's fascinating that the structure is important. That it isn't or doesn't appear to be totally random.
By the way I could say the big bang is garbage because we barely know anything. It doesn't negate it's possibility from the evidence we do have.
And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists right real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.
originally posted by: luthier
And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists right real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs
And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists [write] real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.
originally posted by: whereislogic
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs
And quite clearly stated I only object to the dismissal of fine tuning as garbage. It's not and real scientists [write] real papers regarding fine tuning that has nothing to do with god.
To some people it matters who's using a word or terminology, when philosophical naturalists do it there's usually no objection from these people (just like Stephen Hawking entitling his book "The Grand Design" when it's about the universe, as long as the reader is nicely distracted from the rational conclusion by induction and the proper use of language that a "design" requires at least 1 designer and the process of designing which requires a specific type of intelligence and technological advancement that corresponds with the design in question):
originally posted by: luthier
So in your opinion there is zero chance the universe was designed and there is no evidence to consider it's a possibility?
Just to throw it out there. If humans were killed by some disease and our genetic modifications were left would a newly evolved intelligent species also assume there was no designing and it was completely natural?
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: luthier
I don't actually see any evidence of design out there.