|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ralph
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
 |
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ilcek.217$US3.26@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ynbek.218$w93.213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the
coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe
has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did
miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself, intentional
or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the
result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which
is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
Only by theists.
Theist didn't invent the term, and the phrase is used by scientist.
|
To which term are you referring? I have seen scientists use the term
fine-tuning, but it is usually prefaced by the word 'apparent'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:25 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:G7rek.670$bN2.491@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ilcek.217$US3.26@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ynbek.218$w93.213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the
coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe
has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did
miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself, intentional
or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the
result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which
is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
Only by theists.
Theist didn't invent the term, and the phrase is used by scientist.
To which term are you referring? I have seen scientists use the term
fine-tuning, but it is usually prefaced by the word 'apparent'.
I haven't found that to be the case. The concensus suggest that |
the fine tuned parameters are accepted. How this came about is
the issue. We exist and reside on one planet, so it is really a truism.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:29 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:w3rek.668$bN2.189@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zqcek.220$US3.159@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3xbek.223$w93.133@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NV8ek.140$bN2.118@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fIbdk.19868$CC.11228@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:IK5dk.20421$NQ5.5361@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:otu77459vea56ng572e8i1n9ruol40srol@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:53:25 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
BaLck.27454$AJ6.10728@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zUJck.19833$LL4.13805@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gmAck.19570$NQ5.14764@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
[snip old stuff]
[Why would science as we know it come to an end?]
Because it eliminates the need for inquiry. I assume you live in
the
US
and if you do you are aware of the position of the Christian
fundamentalists. They would eliminate science as we know it if
they
had
the political power to do it. This would be the foot in the door
that
they
would need.
I think this is an extremely biased argument without any supporting
evidence.
I consider myself a deist, but I don't feel such antagism towards
theist.
Would you consider the repeated attempts to teach religious
doctrines
in
science class (Dover, PA; Louisiana; many, many older attempts, all
smacked down) to be evidence?
I don't feel antagonism toward all theists, but they feel antagonism
toward knowledge. It is clear that there is a loud minority that
wants
to limit all scientific inquiry to things that will not offend their
religious doctrines, listen to the stem cell debate sometime, and
they
want to keep all children ignorant of the discoveries of science.
Is this the reason Churches founded many colleges and universities?
Non sequitur. Answer the damn post, Dan! Are theists attempting to
limit
scientific inquiry? The answer is yes, nothing more needs to be said.
It depends, I disbelieve that theist are opposed to science in
general. But I do recognise that some theist are opposed to
evolution, but not the science enterprise as a whole.
Right or wrong they believer evolution debases and diminishes
human beings to the level of animals and undermines morality,
ethics and social order.
A young earth creationist, for example, denies the sciences of biology,
geology, paleontology, physics, cosmology, astronomy, genetics...and
more which I can't think of off-hand. The US has approximately 25% of
the population that deny parts or all of these sciences. You may feel
content to sit on your ass and spout platitudes of BS or perhaps you are
even one of them, but this is a slippery slope to the dark ages.
I lived in the 'bible belt' when I was growing up and the bigotry and
narrow-mindedness of these people causes me to fight them everywhere I
can.
How? Unless you resort to threats of prisons, psychological hospital or
removing their children from their homes or physical violence you cannot
succeed.
I write emails to the proper authorities when the attempt to introduce
their garbage into the educational system. I respond to them in these NG's
so that others might see their positions in science are wrong. I
contribute to the NCSE and subscribe to their quarterly publication. I
call their hand when I hear erroneous statements made, statements such as
there is much evidence against evolution, radiometric dating doesn't work,
etc.
Of course I can succeed. I succeed every time we drag the liars into
court, every time we back a school board into a corner and make them
rescind laws disparaging scientific truths. I win a lot and after George
W. Bush leaves office I will win by gettting governmant support for stem
cell reserarch.
I sincerely hope you do.
Anything to escape the dark ages.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h9wek.718$w93.331@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:G7rek.670$bN2.491@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ilcek.217$US3.26@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ynbek.218$w93.213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the
coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've
made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other
is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe
has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just
a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did
miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself,
intentional or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the
result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which
is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
Only by theists.
Theist didn't invent the term, and the phrase is used by scientist.
To which term are you referring? I have seen scientists use the term
fine-tuning, but it is usually prefaced by the word 'apparent'.
I haven't found that to be the case. The concensus suggest that
the fine tuned parameters are accepted. How this came about is
the issue. We exist and reside on one planet, so it is really a truism.
|
I really don't care to make lists of the scientists who either do or don't
use the term 'apparent fine-tuning'. Suffice it to say, the Discovery
Institute uses the term 'apparent fine-tuning' and that is as far as I am
going to chase that rock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ralph
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h9wek.718$w93.331@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:G7rek.670$bN2.491@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ilcek.217$US3.26@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ynbek.218$w93.213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the
coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've
made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other
is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe
has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just
a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did
miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase 'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself,
intentional or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the
result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term which
is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
Only by theists.
Theist didn't invent the term, and the phrase is used by scientist.
To which term are you referring? I have seen scientists use the term
fine-tuning, but it is usually prefaced by the word 'apparent'.
I haven't found that to be the case. The concensus suggest that
the fine tuned parameters are accepted. How this came about is
the issue. We exist and reside on one planet, so it is really a truism.
|
The constants are there, that is a fact. That the explanation you endorse is
accepted by consensus, is an entirely different matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Danwood
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: Re: The Laws of Physics Are Fine Tuned For life |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h7ufk.2433$t32.603@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h9wek.718$w93.331@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:G7rek.670$bN2.491@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ilcek.217$US3.26@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ynbek.218$w93.213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:kB8ek.132$bN2.11@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yGbdk.19866$CC.19087@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4J5dk.20419$NQ5.15701@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:nau774t678pm50r3k1ufjuaeb08qsga768@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 20:37:44 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism
"Danwood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote in
9Dyck.22477$Xe.110@bignews1.bellsouth.net>:
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Qsvck.25932$AJ6.18292@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
...
You really don't understand, do you? There are two sides of the
coin
for
these constants.
I understood you to say that it is my _claim_ that most
astronomers
support the I.D. version of the A.P.. This is not a claim I've
made.
That's a start.
One side is that the universe was designed for us and the other
is
that
we
were designed for the universe.
In order for us to be designed (fitted?) for the universe. There
must first be a universe. The constants had to first have the
right
value. The strength of the Big Bang expansion and the force of
gravity had to have the correct ratio.
Okay. So what?
If this ratio was not balanced, there would not be a universe.
Again, so what? There is a universe.
Another is the strength of the electric charge of the electron
and the ratio between this charge and the mass of the proton.
If this ratio was not correct there could be no matter.
Again, the universe shows that the relationships work. It says
absolutely nothing about other possibilities or causes.
One side naturalism, one side supernatural.
You quote scientists who all agree on the fact that the universe
has
certain constants that are advantageous to the universe and
them you claim supernatural origins for these constants.
Actually, I believe the facts beg for an explanation.
That may be, but explanations that go well into unsupportable
speculation are not explanations.
And
it I think there are three choices: 1) Our universe is one
among infininte numbers of universes, therefore, our existence
is just a matter of statistics. 2) Fine tuning is accidental, just
a
coincidence that the laws of physics just happened to have the
right values. A variation on this is they could not have been
different. 3) Fine tuning is evidence of some intelligent force.
We have no idea at all, so these guesses are meaningless. You did
miss
a
couple: 4) Physics is always the same, variations are not
possible,
etc.
This is true after the fact, however, moments after the big bang
the laws became set. Could they have had different values, no one
knows, for certain. But the multiverse arguments is predicated upon
the argument that they each universe could have it's own set of
parameters. Ours as one among an infinity of universes just
happened
to get the right values.
Still, you have to make certain that you don't let the phrase
'fine
tuning' imply that there was a tuner. The phrase itself,
intentional or
not, does have a tendency to mislead.
What phrase would you have used?
Why use one at all? The term anthropic coincidences describes the
result
quite clearly. The fact that the values have a small range certainly
doesn't justify the term fine-tuning. It is just another case of a
scientist being lax with his description. Fine tuning is a term
which
is
only near and dear to the heart of a theist.
It seems to fit.
Only by theists.
Theist didn't invent the term, and the phrase is used by scientist.
To which term are you referring? I have seen scientists use the term
fine-tuning, but it is usually prefaced by the word 'apparent'.
I haven't found that to be the case. The concensus suggest that
the fine tuned parameters are accepted. How this came about is
the issue. We exist and reside on one planet, so it is really a truism.
The constants are there, that is a fact. That the explanation you endorse
is accepted by consensus, is an entirely different matter.
Actually I haven't "endorsed" any existing explanation. I arrived at my |
conclusions independent of other opinions, based upon my reading
and studying of the evidence.
> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
